The Election is over, God’s keeps electing those into office because it’s gettin ever closer to the end.
Deception? Deception? Can someone else say it with me?
When do people have to decieve to acheive their agendas! Why can’t all scientist come out and say, atheist or not, if a person is against cloning they should vote against amendment 2 in missouri!
Or Deceiving with the raising of minium wage! Yay! More money I’m a freagin idiot not to look at it’s ramifications!
Comon, deception. And most of us are the morons to believe, can’t get people to agree with you? Decieve them. Grand.
I was thinking how stupid our these religious people, amendment 2 says nothing about cloning, it’s against it, little did I know I was decieved.
Deception, and who enjoys this game? Amoral people who don’t follow a religion like Christianity… who else.
Maybe for religious people, but amoral people don’t see it as immoral. Therefore they have the right unto themselves they see to be immoral to us, even though to them this isn’t a moral topic. You see? Deception is a lie, it’s hypocritical. To do this to people, you must be a greedy man without a heart, like many scientists. Who now our admitting after the election that somatic nuclear transfer actually is cloning! Duh we knew this, but since we’re religious people were crazy and stupid.
How do you define another person? Where do you draw the line? However, I believe cloning gives a soul. This is God’s job, not ours, so this is why I believe it’s wrong. But of course someone else will disagree from a different base.
Debating from your perspective, god knew all when he made us. He would know our eventual capabilities. Wouldn’t he tell us in the bible “Oh, and no doing my job”, or even better “No Cloning!”?
Haha. I bet you think of God as a white robbed figure with a beard and angels with wings(they don’t have them) flying around playing harps don’t you? Just listen to comedy central, blah blah, southpark, w/e, hey if I was you I’d probably be in the same boat as well.
Of course cloning was nothing heard of 2000 years ago, the word probably didn’t exist!
See this is the problem with many atheist, they just don’t think about things. They’d probably think it more logical for God to have written every single possibility of a sin in the bible too! This would last forever! it’s like saying why didn’t God say no killing with a bb gun? Huh? he didn’t specify!
To answer your question, he did. We have dominion over animals but not each other. God doesn’t want us killing his creations for our own benefits. Cloning has not be seen to be successful, if it was this would be another story. It is apparent to be harmful and unnatural, something God doesn’t want for us to do as Christians.
But see, that is where you have to draw the line between deception and disagreement. To me, somatic nuclear transfer doesn’t create another person – it isn’t cloning in the “making another person” meaning of the word because to me that isn’t a human being! My definition of human is in line with Tu Weiming, who defines the self (and thereby humanity) within the context of social relations. Since an embryo is incapable of human relationships it isn’t human in that sense of the word. No deception, just disagreement.
I see. God was a product of the times he lived in. That makes no sense.
I am not many atheist, I am thezeus18. Respond to me, not many atheist.
If I were him, effort and time would not matter because I am omnipotent. I would make a big manual, cut out all the drama, and have everything categorized and cross-referenced. I’d also add a search engine.
Whether or not cloning is successful is not the issue here, sir. What is being debated is whether cloning is by definition wrong every time it is practiced, whether it has benefit or not. Basically, whether it is absolutely objectively immoral. Whether or not it has benefit is another topic all together.
Listen, understand for one moment. Take the atheistic blinding glasses off.
It would not be logical that a word such as ‘cloning’ would be used by God for a prophet to write. Here’s why, such a word was constructed by a future generation. Now, for this to have occured, it would be directly giving a proof that God exists 1. or it would be tossed out as this word was defined because of biblical text and they made the word up randomly. Now, God does not show direct proof I believe because this interferes with faith, he must leave almost everything open to questioning to some degree. Did you ever stop to think maybe one of God’s purposes is to see if we will take the time to invest evidence, or close our minds as many have? I could get into this deeper but not sure if you’d even understand. If you want me to say so.
And like I said you cannot ask that God specify every thing not to do from then to now to the future, the list would never end. It must be based upon primarys.
You are not God, that’s the point many seem to miss.
Well I have no reason to debate cloning with someone who believes we are random products of cells and that we came from monkeys, and that life was mere chance. No doubt you will disagree with the belief life comes from conception.
Look., all this is doing is antagonizing me to a point where I will never agree with you. Somehow, I’m beginning to think that’s what you want. Take the sword out of your hand, crusader.
Now, think about that line I just wrote. Does that make you want to agree with me? Does that make you think I’m smart?
God’s purpose is to see if we take the time to invest evidence. That’s illogical. He’d be competing against himself, because he created us. If we fail, it’s his failure for not making us good enough. Can one play a game of chess with oneself?
Why didn’t he make an RSS feed, that updates with every year, showing us the current wrong things. Why doesn’t he update the bible?
I never said that I was. I said if I was.
I don’t believe it’s relevant. If you don’t want to debate, fine. Isolate yourself like your brethren do.
It’s only a request. Many atheist don’t listen to reasonable arguments, they just ignore them and go off on tangents, I only ask you listen.
Ridiculous question, if that’s all you have I’m wasting my time.
I’m not isolating myself, I’ve been discussing for quite some time now as you are unaware of. But I cannot debate with you from level 3, kitchen table talk, we must debate the basis of which our arugments come from, theory so on. You come from believing life is meaningless anyway and that God’s laws are not to be followed, whereas I differ, now how can we discuss such a topic unless we discuss our bases first? You see?
God’s purpose is to see if we take the time to invest evidence. That’s illogical. He’d be competing against himself, because he created us. If we fail, it’s his failure for not making us good enough.
Can’t beat em make a straw man, is that all you have? Comon now. Did I really say that?
I don’t think you understand free will. You need to elaborate a bit more on why that’s illogical, heck I’m not even saying that’s his purpose I said it could be one.
I’m inclinded to agree with Club29, wrt to commandments. I am dear friends with a very devout muslim (bear with me) and he won’t touch a drop of alcohol. However, he has know other muslims who have been known to drink bourbon. Why? Because the Holy Qu’ran has a strong intradiction against wine. This can be understood to mean either that one oughtn’t drink alcohol, period (which is the most popular understanding of the phrase) or that one merely oughtn’t drink wine. Later on the Qu’ran clarifies that intoxicants are meant by wine (it gets specific here), but this passage is either cherry picked out (in the case of bourbon) or it is understood that intoxicants means alcohol (in arabic the two words are the same), so, for example, weed is allowed.
So, my muslim friend occasionally jokes about what would have happened if Allah had said, “Don’t drink wine, nor beer, nor pastis, nor ouzo, nor bourbon, nor scotch, ect.” and how each one would have been mistranslated over time (since bourbon would have had zero meaning to muslims until, what, the first world war?) and all sorts of problems would have resulted. It makes more sense to adjust the teachings to the times and hope that the faithful will be smart enough to work out the ambiguities as time goes on.