Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Christian Thread
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedThe Christian Thread

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1314151617 92>
Author
Message
StyLaZyn View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 03 2009 at 16:09
Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

I don't believe he would.  If he did, I suppose he could light the bushes in front of my home on fire and speak to me that way.
I'm trying to make a point. If the Bible\God\Jesus is OK with you killing someone, it should also be OK to provide information on how to do it.  Does this make sense? 
<font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Yes.  I agree with you.  The Bible is full of places in which God orders the killing of certain people (Joshua chapter six is a huge example I'm surprised no critics of Christianity have jumped on yet).
I'm game for that. Big smile I don't know specific verses, but the Old Testament is a pretty horrible piece of literature if there ever was one. Genocide, senseless killing of animals, and an overall unreasonably vicious God.The Gospels are entirely more agreeable, though civilized thought had basically covered all of its good ideas by that time.
As far as I know, God has never said that animals and man are equal. That's a concept of mankind itself dreamt up.
Oh I wouldn't have expected him to. Only in the past 50 or even 25 years have we begun to understand that animals can exhibit incredible intelligence, culture, and so on. In 50 years, I suggest by most relevant theories of morality, it will be morally unethical to eat most animals simply because the only real reason we don't kill people--respect for their intelligence--would no longer not be applicable to animals. God could have revealed the fact of animal intelligence to people back then, but instead decided to indulge in speciesism.
I'm sorry, but if anyone believes animals deserve the same rights as humans, they're nuts.I don't care how intelligent certain animals are; the reason we don't kill human beings is because they are of our own species. Animals kill and eat other animals lower on the food chain than they are, and have even killed their own kind senslessly just like we have. This pattern simply continues with us. If you honestly can't see that, then there's no talking to you anyway.
That's right. The only life we should respect is human life. Let me buy a hunting rifle and I'll meet up with you in the field. Venison. Yum.
I never said we shouldn't respect the lives of other creatures. I was simply pointing out the fact animals could care less about the lives THEY take, so why is it so horrible of people to eat a steak? I've never understood this argument of how it's evil to eat animals, when animals won't think twice about eating a lower member of the food chain themselves. The fact that you clearly do nothing but stick words in people's mouths and take others' post out of context in order to prove your point makes me wonder why I even bother debating with you.
Well you could have fooled me with your calling people nuts. 


You make a good point, here. I am sorry, I shouldn't have made that statement. It was rather rash. Forgive me.

And I apologize for sounding the wiseguy. As a recovering Catholic, and now former atheist, I am struggling with logic versus faith. Still unsure if there is a God, I believe in the spirit world. My current stance is that if there is a God, he in no way interferes with us and is not a God who "thinks" or is personified. The struggle is also that God played no part in writing the Bible but is in fact man made and "updated" through the ages to make the most complete and impeccable doucument it can be.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 03 2009 at 16:09
Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

I don't believe he would.  If he did, I suppose he could light the bushes in front of my home on fire and speak to me that way.
I'm trying to make a point. If the Bible\God\Jesus is OK with you killing someone, it should also be OK to provide information on how to do it.  Does this make sense? 
<font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Yes.  I agree with you.  The Bible is full of places in which God orders the killing of certain people (Joshua chapter six is a huge example I'm surprised no critics of Christianity have jumped on yet).
I'm game for that. Big smile I don't know specific verses, but the Old Testament is a pretty horrible piece of literature if there ever was one. Genocide, senseless killing of animals, and an overall unreasonably vicious God.The Gospels are entirely more agreeable, though civilized thought had basically covered all of its good ideas by that time.
As far as I know, God has never said that animals and man are equal. That's a concept of mankind itself dreamt up.
Oh I wouldn't have expected him to. Only in the past 50 or even 25 years have we begun to understand that animals can exhibit incredible intelligence, culture, and so on. In 50 years, I suggest by most relevant theories of morality, it will be morally unethical to eat most animals simply because the only real reason we don't kill people--respect for their intelligence--would no longer not be applicable to animals. God could have revealed the fact of animal intelligence to people back then, but instead decided to indulge in speciesism.
I'm sorry, but if anyone believes animals deserve the same rights as humans, they're nuts.I don't care how intelligent certain animals are; the reason we don't kill human beings is because they are of our own species. Animals kill and eat other animals lower on the food chain than they are, and have even killed their own kind senslessly just like we have. This pattern simply continues with us. If you honestly can't see that, then there's no talking to you anyway.
That's right. The only life we should respect is human life. Let me buy a hunting rifle and I'll meet up with you in the field. Venison. Yum.
I never said we shouldn't respect the lives of other creatures. I was simply pointing out the fact animals could care less about the lives THEY take, so why is it so horrible of people to eat a steak? I've never understood this argument of how it's evil to eat animals, when animals won't think twice about eating a lower member of the food chain themselves. The fact that you clearly do nothing but stick words in people's mouths and take others' post out of context in order to prove your point makes me wonder why I even bother debating with you.
Well you could have fooled me with your calling people nuts. 


You make a good point, here. I am sorry, I shouldn't have made that statement. It was rather rash. Forgive me.

You should be forgiven in a Christian Thread except for the quote pyramids. Wink Tongue


Edited by Slartibartfast - June 03 2009 at 16:10
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
JLocke View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 03 2009 at 16:16
Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

I don't believe he would.  If he did, I suppose he could light the bushes in front of my home on fire and speak to me that way.
I'm trying to make a point. If the Bible\God\Jesus is OK with you killing someone, it should also be OK to provide information on how to do it.  Does this make sense? 
<font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Yes.  I agree with you.  The Bible is full of places in which God orders the killing of certain people (Joshua chapter six is a huge example I'm surprised no critics of Christianity have jumped on yet).
I'm game for that. Big smile I don't know specific verses, but the Old Testament is a pretty horrible piece of literature if there ever was one. Genocide, senseless killing of animals, and an overall unreasonably vicious God.The Gospels are entirely more agreeable, though civilized thought had basically covered all of its good ideas by that time.
As far as I know, God has never said that animals and man are equal. That's a concept of mankind itself dreamt up.
Oh I wouldn't have expected him to. Only in the past 50 or even 25 years have we begun to understand that animals can exhibit incredible intelligence, culture, and so on. In 50 years, I suggest by most relevant theories of morality, it will be morally unethical to eat most animals simply because the only real reason we don't kill people--respect for their intelligence--would no longer not be applicable to animals. God could have revealed the fact of animal intelligence to people back then, but instead decided to indulge in speciesism.
I'm sorry, but if anyone believes animals deserve the same rights as humans, they're nuts.I don't care how intelligent certain animals are; the reason we don't kill human beings is because they are of our own species. Animals kill and eat other animals lower on the food chain than they are, and have even killed their own kind senslessly just like we have. This pattern simply continues with us. If you honestly can't see that, then there's no talking to you anyway.
That's right. The only life we should respect is human life. Let me buy a hunting rifle and I'll meet up with you in the field. Venison. Yum.
I never said we shouldn't respect the lives of other creatures. I was simply pointing out the fact animals could care less about the lives THEY take, so why is it so horrible of people to eat a steak? I've never understood this argument of how it's evil to eat animals, when animals won't think twice about eating a lower member of the food chain themselves. The fact that you clearly do nothing but stick words in people's mouths and take others' post out of context in order to prove your point makes me wonder why I even bother debating with you.
Well you could have fooled me with your calling people nuts. 
You make a good point, here. I am sorry, I shouldn't have made that statement. It was rather rash. Forgive me.
And I apologize for sounding the wiseguy. As a recovering Catholic, and now former atheist, I am struggling with logic versus faith. Still unsure if there is a God, I believe in the spirit world. My current stance is that if there is a God, he in no way interferes with us and is not a God who "thinks" or is personified. The struggle is also that God played no part in writing the Bible but is in fact man made and "updated" through the ages to make the most complete and impeccable doucument it can be.


Hey, at least you haven't ruled out God's existance completely. And no worries, mate. I can understand where you are coming from, especially if you have come out of Catholicism. I will pray that you find all the answeres you are seeking. Keep asking questions, my friend. It's what we are meant to do.
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 03 2009 at 16:42
< ="-" ="text/; =utf-8">< name="GENERATOR" ="Office.org 3.0 Win32">< ="text/">

Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:


You are basing your point on the assumption than animals are in fact on the same level as we are; an opinion I already addressed as being debatable.


I do not think animals and people are on the exact same level, but I do not think it's as stratified as the Bible indicates, at least. Sad as is may be, we're the product of evolution as much as any other animal is, and it's just that we've been dealt the intelligence cards rather than the speed, flight, or any number of evolutionary traits, to put it metaphorically. So, we are the same in many respects, but have much higher intelligence than most animals, as well as certain other mostly unique traits. What I think we can do with our intelligence is recognize the pain in animals that other animals cannot themselves see, as well as see the trend of evolution, which I think can help break down the long-running trend of separating us from other animals.


Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

No, I do NOT believe God gave humans domain over EVERYTHING (he gave lucifer rule over the current earth, for instance) but he did give us authority over animals.


Forgive me for not knowing the ins and outs of the Bible. I did not mean everything literally, but only concerning animals, because I'm not interested in discussing anything else now.

Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:


To suggest that I assume I can have free reign over everything simply because I take a different stand on one single issue (animal rights) is absurd, with all due respect.


I was not implying that at all.


Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:


So you're saying the reason why we don't kill our own kind is because we respect the intelligence of our fellow man, then you turn around and say that animals don't have as much intelligence as humans in your attempt to explain away their lack of regard for other creatures they kill. By that logic, we in fact shouldn't respect animals either, because their intelligence does not mirror our own. I must have missed the point you were trying to make.


Intelligence should factor in accordingly with unnecessary suffering when addressing animal cruelty, experimentation, and eating of animals. Culture, intelligence, and language should all be factored in, and should be treated respectfully, with more respect going to animals who show more advanced degrees of them. However, in all thing with nervous systems, culture, intelligence, and language do not have to come into the equation when animals can experience pain (and even suffering--which requires fear of future pain, beyond the mere instantaneous pain). It would bother me if someone disregards the fact of animal pain by attributing it to a divine mandate.

Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

Ultimately, we will never agree on this, so why debate it? I can respect your viewpoint without agreeing with it, after all.

Well, I try because I think minimizing the fact of animal pain and not being speciesist without careful consideration of the options are worthy causes to think about. Equally so, I'm against unreasonable Biblical mandates which I think people tend to clutch to despite mounting evidence that we should act contrary to them.

Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 03 2009 at 17:56
I'd just want to point out that adding "ist" or "ism" to a category to make a new word doesn't affect my feelings in the least.
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2009 at 01:37

^ There's a wikipedia page on it, and animal ethics is a very real and interesting field of philosophy.

I may not expect you to be moved by a mere word, but if you would rather believe that God lets you do whatever you want to aminals (that can feel pain just as much as you can) rather than even entertain the possibility that what you're doing is wrong, then I'm very sad for you.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2009 at 06:07
Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

^ There's a wikipedia page on it, and animal ethics is a very real and interesting field of philosophy.

I may not expect you to be moved by a mere word, but if you would rather believe that God lets you do whatever you want to aminals (that can feel pain just as much as you can) rather than even entertain the possibility that what you're doing is wrong, then I'm very sad for you.


Yes, the wikipedia page says this:


"I use the word 'speciesism'," he explained two years later, "to describe the widespread discrimination that is practised by man against other species [...]. Speciesism and racism both overlook or underestimate the similarities between the discriminator and those discriminated against."

So I'm going to make a new word: Inanimatism.  This word describes the overlooking and underestimation people make regarding the similarities between people and inanimate objects.  We should not discriminate against inanimate objects.

Ludicrous?  Yeah, thought so.  I'm positive that you discriminate against animals ALL the time.  Do you let grizzly bears visit your home?  Do you support the right of cats to vote?  Do you invite chimpanzees to play Halo with you and your so-called "human" friends?  If you had to choose between the death of a child in your country and the death of a cockroach in your country, do you have to think about it?

People and animals are fundamentally different, and I will never consider an animal my equal (my wife might make comparisons, but that's a discussion for another day).

And you overestimate what I said regarding animals.  I do not think God let's me do whatever I want with animals.  I don't kick dogs.  I don't tie the tails of kittens together.  I don't even hunt.  But I believe animals exist for a variety of really cool reasons, and that one of those cool reasons is for my nourishment.  Animals do not think twice when they consume another animal, so clearly do not recognize one another's supposedly inherent rights- why should I?  It's a food chain.  Don't make me break out with The Lion King theme song. Wink

By the way, my comment on adding that suffix to anything people want me to feel guilty about was actually a reference to a Cracked article I read a few days ago, which I not only found extremely funny, but I wholeheartedly agreed with it.
Back to Top
VanderGraafKommandöh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2009 at 06:20
Yes but we're animals too.  Does that mean we should be eaten by other humans for nourishment? Wink

Yes, I am being pedantic.

Also, Chimpanzees could quite effectively play Halo (they may not know what they're doing but they could use a controller), I should think.  They're our closest specie and they can do a lot of wonderful things.

Besides, you've completely missed Stonie's point.  Of course he discriminates against animals in those particular situations (well, most of them).

By the way, I'm not a vegetarian and do eat meat.  I also believe in the food chain.  However, that does not warrant unnecessary cruelty to animals, especially when it comes to not eating them.

Animal testing is wrong as well.  Yes, I realise many cures for different illnesses and diseases have been found this way but it's still not ethical.


Edited by James - June 04 2009 at 06:25
Back to Top
StyLaZyn View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2009 at 07:10
Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

 
Hey, at least you haven't ruled out God's existance completely. And no worries, mate. I can understand where you are coming from, especially if you have come out of Catholicism. I will pray that you find all the answeres you are seeking. Keep asking questions, my friend. It's what we are meant to do.

That is what each of us must do. That leads us to a better understanding of the world around us. Being complacent and accepting things for what they are, can often be a curse.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2009 at 07:30
Originally posted by James James wrote:

Yes but we're animals too.  Does that mean we should be eaten by other humans for nourishment? Wink

Yes, I am being pedantic.

Also, Chimpanzees could quite effectively play Halo (they may not know what they're doing but they could use a controller), I should think.  They're our closest specie and they can do a lot of wonderful things.

Besides, you've completely missed Stonie's point.  Of course he discriminates against animals in those particular situations (well, most of them).

By the way, I'm not a vegetarian and do eat meat.  I also believe in the food chain.  However, that does not warrant unnecessary cruelty to animals, especially when it comes to not eating them.

Animal testing is wrong as well.  Yes, I realise many cures for different illnesses and diseases have been found this way but it's still not ethical.


No one here was advocating unnecessary cruelty to animals, so I don't realize why this is even an issue to be brought up in this thread.

Also, funny you should mention animal testing- from what I've noticed, several of the same people who believe animal testing is immoral have no qualms about human embryonic stem cell research (again, not to spark a debate, just an ironic observation).
Back to Top
StyLaZyn View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2009 at 07:43
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by James James wrote:

Yes but we're animals too.  Does that mean we should be eaten by other humans for nourishment? Wink

Yes, I am being pedantic.

Also, Chimpanzees could quite effectively play Halo (they may not know what they're doing but they could use a controller), I should think.  They're our closest specie and they can do a lot of wonderful things.

Besides, you've completely missed Stonie's point.  Of course he discriminates against animals in those particular situations (well, most of them).

By the way, I'm not a vegetarian and do eat meat.  I also believe in the food chain.  However, that does not warrant unnecessary cruelty to animals, especially when it comes to not eating them.

Animal testing is wrong as well.  Yes, I realise many cures for different illnesses and diseases have been found this way but it's still not ethical.

No one here was advocating unnecessary cruelty to animals, so I don't realize why this is even an issue to be brought up in this thread.

Also, funny you should mention animal testing- from what I've noticed, several of the same people who believe animal testing is immoral have no qualms about human embryonic stem cell research (again, not to spark a debate, just an ironic observation).

Why is it we never hear that stem cells are available in the afterbirth placenta?


Back to Top
Jim Garten View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin & Razor Guru

Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14693
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2009 at 07:46
Thought I'd just quote this from page 1:

Originally posted by Epignosis on page 1 Epignosis on page 1 wrote:

I wanted to start a thread for Christians to discuss the Bible, their faith, and their struggles. This should be a place where we can pray for one another and encourage one another with scripture and testimony.


Another couple of pathetic posts deleted.

Whilst this is not a thread I visit or contribute to myself, I'd ask that members respect the wishes of those who do & keep prurient posts to themselves.

Many thanks,

Jim Garten

Jon Lord 1941 - 2012
Back to Top
StyLaZyn View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2009 at 07:56
Originally posted by Jim Garten Jim Garten wrote:

Thought I'd just quote this from page 1:

Originally posted by Epignosis on page 1 Epignosis on page 1 wrote:

I wanted to start a thread for Christians to discuss the Bible, their faith, and their struggles. This should be a place where we can pray for one another and encourage one another with scripture and testimony.


Another couple of pathetic posts deleted.

Whilst this is not a thread I visit or contribute to myself, I'd ask that members respect the wishes of those who do & keep prurient posts to themselves.

Many thanks,

Jim Garten

Time to create a different thread and let this become what It was meant to be.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2009 at 08:11
Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

Originally posted by Jim Garten Jim Garten wrote:

Thought I'd just quote this from page 1:

Originally posted by Epignosis on page 1 Epignosis on page 1 wrote:

I wanted to start a thread for Christians to discuss the Bible, their faith, and their struggles. This should be a place where we can pray for one another and encourage one another with scripture and testimony.


Another couple of pathetic posts deleted.

Whilst this is not a thread I visit or contribute to myself, I'd ask that members respect the wishes of those who do & keep prurient posts to themselves.

Many thanks,

Jim Garten

Time to create a different thread and let this become what It was meant to be.


Well, that's why I mentioned yesterday that I was happy to see we could have a discussion without things getting out of hand.  Our talk yesterday enabled me to study some things I had not in quite some time, so I really appreciate that.  You fellows keep a mind sharp! Wink

And I don't mind answering questions about my faith or what the Bible says, or discussing certain points with nonbelievers- my main concern is that this thread doesn't turn into a pushing and shoving contest (which I'm sorry to say many threads based on religion and politics turn into).

And thank you, Jim, for the deletion of one particular post.  I was just going to ignore it.
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2009 at 11:34
Originally posted by James James wrote:


Animal testing is wrong as well.  Yes, I realise many cures for different illnesses and diseases have been found this way but it's still not ethical.
 
I'm still torn on that one, and am inclined to take a utilitarian view on it. It may turn out that ultimately we'd be able to better treat animals diseases and all other sorts of things.
 
In a sense, unless egregiously horrible things are done along the way (define that as you will), I believe the progress of science should not be hindered. It will eventually make life better for all things, as long as we don't kill our planet along the way.
Back to Top
JLocke View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2009 at 21:40
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


 . . . Also, funny you should mention animal testing- from what I've noticed, several of the same people who believe animal testing is immoral have no qualms about human embryonic stem cell research (again, not to spark a debate, just an ironic observation).


Clap
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65266
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2009 at 21:58
Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


 . . . Also, funny you should mention animal testing- from what I've noticed, several of the same people who believe animal testing is immoral have no qualms about human embryonic stem cell research (again, not to spark a debate, just an ironic observation).


Clap


I'm one of those people, which begs the question: do I think animals are more important than people?  I'd say equal to, and therefore require the same protections offered people.. but if we're talking stem cell research, either animals or human, I think the potential breakthroughs through the destruction of unborn tissue outweigh other moral issues.



Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2009 at 02:32
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


Also, funny you should mention animal testing- from what I've noticed, several of the same people who believe animal testing is immoral have no qualms about human embryonic stem cell research (again, not to spark a debate, just an ironic observation).


Well, for one thing if you don't have a nervous system, you can't feel pain, which is probably 75% of my argument. But you have to weigh the potential of any unborn life versus the outcomes for people actually living now. Similarly with abortion, however stem cells can come from other places than embryos.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2009 at 06:25
I'm not going to debate abortion here (someone can start a thread if they wish), but I'll only say that the destruction of children (born or unborn) for our convenience, comfort, and research grieves the God of the Bible.  I will never support any of it.
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 20 2009 at 14:32
Sad to this thread so far down, I shall revive it!
LOL
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1314151617 92>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.276 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.