Sam Harris An Atheist Manifesto

[bullethead]

....making it a question of morality.

I agree.
And the side that would not have so much as one cell damaged usually worships a being that killed tens of millions of his own likeness and image in the scripture they follow.

Morals.

 

[ambush80]

I agree.
And the side that would not have so much as one cell damaged usually worships a being that killed tens of millions of his own likeness and image in the scripture they follow.

Morals.

C'mon man. When God does something it's righteous. That doesn't mean that people are supposed to do the same thing.

Then again.....Jesus was God as man. Jesus would not have killed millions of people, would he? But.....Jesus is god.... Was Jesus god in the Old Testament? Was it the same guy in Leviticus as in Matthew?

How in the World am I supposed to get moral understanding from this?

 

[bullethead]

C'mon man. When God does something it's righteous. That doesn't mean that people are supposed to do the same thing.

Then again.....Jesus was God as man. Jesus would not have killed millions of people, would he? But.....Jesus is god.... Was Jesus god in the Old Testament? Was it the same guy in Leviticus as in Matthew?

How in the World am I supposed to get moral understanding from this?

I am not sure if there is a new movie coming out about a young Jesus or if it is a made for TV movie but I caught a piece of the commercial and Mary said to Joseph, (I am probably paraphrasing because I was not paying attention until it donned on me) "how do we tell this young boy that God is his father?"

And I'm thinking...wait...what??
Isn't Jesus also god? Wouldn't he knows who he is, what his purpose was and who was his father right off the bat? Wasn't he always part of the big 3?

Or, was he just human like everybody else?

Now I am not so dense to not understand that the whole flipping movie dialog was some Hollywood writers baby, but there will be people saying amen's and hallelujah to every line.

 

[Israel]

I am not sure if there is a new movie coming out about a young Jesus or if it is a made for TV movie but I caught a piece of the commercial and Mary said to Joseph, (I am probably paraphrasing because I was not paying attention until it donned on me) "how do we tell this young boy that God is his father?"

And I'm thinking...wait...what??
Isn't Jesus also god? Wouldn't he knows who he is, what his purpose was and who was his father right off the bat? Wasn't he always part of the big 3?

Or, was he just human like everybody else?

Now I am not so dense to not understand that the whole flipping movie dialog was some Hollywood writers baby, but there will be people saying amen's and hallelujah to every line.

Jesus walked as a man in every way...(yet, without sin) full of the Holy Spirit, but man nevertheless.
Of the many things of which he freely admitted, omniscience was not one of them, in fact he denied knowing certain things. He speaks of relying on His Father for all the things he did, and admitted that "of myself, I can do nothing".
He admits he has a will to submit, and, that in order to be in conformity with God, was surrendered.

But, that "information" gives only the outline, so to speak, of what could easily be assumed to many errors as to his being in his relationship to the Father. (Which is fundamentally a lifelong investigation and discovery...so that we too, might become "normal" men in relationship through Jesus the Son...to the knowing of our true Father.

But, as to my relationship to Him, as he has been given authority over all things (and all pertaining to me) is as the creature to his God. For it is only through Him, I can see the Father. Of all.

 

[bullethead]

Jesus walked as a man in every way...full of the Holy Spirit, but man nevertheless.

I can agree that a spiritual man most likely existed all those years ago. No more or no less spiritual than many who have come before him and after.

Of the many things of which he freely admitted, omniscience was not one of them, in fact he denied knowing certain things. He speaks of relying on His Father for all the things he did, and admitted that "of myself, I can do nothing".
He admits he has a will to submit, that in order to be in conformity with God, was surrendered.

Now here is where you are starting to lose credibility.
You weren't there. Jesus has not visited you since and has not told you these things. You are using the stories that were written by anonymous people that not only were not there but had never even met him.
Just like the writers of this movie, they have to take some creative leeway and totally and literally make up conversations that took place between only one or two people.

But, that "information" gives only the outline, so to speak, of what could easily be assumed to many errors as to his being in his relationship to the Father. (Which is fundamentally a lifelong investigation and discovery...so that we too, might become "normal" men in relationship through Jesus as the Son...to the knowing of our true Father.

That information is only as good as the reporters, who covered the events 40-70years later.
It certainly is inspiring to some, but inspiration comes in many forms to many people.

But, as to my relationship to Him, as he has been given authority over all things (and all pertaining to me) is as the creature to his God. For it is only through Him, I can see the Father. Of all.

That is your choice to give him whatever credit you need to in order to get you through life.
I won't fault you for that.
But please don't try to pass off to me that you actually know anything about a guy named Jesus other than what anonymous men wrote.

 

[JB0704]

I agree.
And the side that would not have so much as one cell damaged usually worships a being that killed tens of millions of his own likeness and image in the scripture they follow.

Morals.

Ok. You perceive hypocracy. I think it would be more accurate if they practiced those things they condemn others for (many do). And I get what your saying about God. If I were you I'd view it the same.

My point n this whole last page or so is to demonstrate we all apply morality at some level to what we think ought be. Getting mad at Christians over where they believe life begins seems to disregard they are drawing lines no differently than anybody else.

I personally don't know what to think of the cells in the Petri dish. They will never be human until implanted, so my logic indicates they are not.........but (and I am just being honest with yall here), something about creating it to destroy it feels wrong. I have no basis for that position outside of my "gut feeling." Perhaps it has been hammered home enough that I default to that position. I do not adhere to it strictly because logic indicates a human requires implantation.

Now, if on of my children suffered from an illness we believed science could cure through such a study, I am pretty sure my "gut feeling" would change in the matter.

 

[660griz]

That's why I say implantation. But, I don't see how science proves anything other than the 5 day old blastocyst being alive. I think you are drawing your line when it becomes human / mammal.

Mammal is defined as a vertebrate having hair. There is some other stuff in there about caring for the young, n milk, but that doesn't apply to the newborn. Spine is week 5 and hair is around week 14 (thanks google). Are you saying birth, week, 14?

That's kind-of my point, though......there are lots of places in development where we can say "this is a person, this is not a person." The conception crowd is drawing a line at the earliest point, removing the subjective, and saying "this is a human." Which it is......just a human in an extremely early stage of development. Either way, it's grounded in science.

Don't forget, "breaths air".

 

[JB0704]

Don't forget, "breaths air".

So you don't think it's a person until birth? I read that as basically having lungs. These develop very early in the process.

 

[660griz]

So you don't think it's a person until birth? I read that as basically having lungs. These develop very early in the process.

Well, it gets a little complicated for me after all the organs form but, hopefully, it is clear I don't think a blastocyst is a person.

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

 

[JB0704]

Well, it gets a little complicated for me after all the organs form but, hopefully, it is clear I don't think a blastocyst is a person.

Yes, that is clear.

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

I thought we were using science, but, we can also use the Bible if you prefer

 

[660griz]

Yes, that is clear.



I thought we were using science, but, we can also use the Bible if you prefer

Sorry. We can use science. I assumed your beliefs were influenced by the Bible. My bad.
Strike that verse.

 

[JB0704]

My beliefs are influenced by the Bible, no doubt. In this debate, however, I am very comfortable and confident sticking to science.

This is one of those areas where my beliefs would not change if I woke up tomorrow not believing in God. I think the logic is sound.

 

[660griz]

My beliefs are influenced by the Bible, no doubt. In this debate, however, I am very comfortable and confident sticking to science.

This is one of those areas where my beliefs would not change if I woke up tomorrow not believing in God. I think the logic is sound.

I think my logic is sound too. The end.

I mentioned scripture because most of the arguments against stem cell research are moral, not scientific.

From:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC525749/
When does life begin? The answer to this question has enormous consequences for the future study of hESCs. Defining life as the moment of conception is certainly a convenient starting point, but this relies on an assumption about the value of a potential life. In this argument, value is placed on function (potential for future development) rather than structure (current state of development). This starting point, conception, is also promoted by many of those who rely on revealed Scripture. For those holding such beliefs, research on stem cells and the destruction of human blastocysts are simply unacceptable.

To many, implantation of the blastocyst in the uterine wall is the best landmark for the definition of life. Indeed, this is the first stage at which the individual is defined (e.g., the blastula is past the stage in which it can split to form twins). This is the point described in Subpart B of 45CFR46 as the first stage covered by human protections regulations. This is also the last developmental stage accepted in the United Kingdom and in many other countries throughout the world. For research on human embryos, gastrulation is another strong candidate, as it is reasonable to consider the phase in which the nervous system is formed and the possibility of sensation first exists as the beginning of human life.

One of the most dangerous trends in this debate is that of offering religious opinions cloaked in the language and veneer of science (e.g., using systems theory to justify the belief that life begins at conception). We have emphasized differences between embryonic and adult stem cells because many in the public and in Congress have claimed, arbitrarily, that the two sources are identical. Richard Dorflinger, Deputy Director of the Secretariat of the pro-life activities of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, has claimed that adult stem cells hold more promise than embryonic stem cells and that research on embryonic stem cells is therefore unnecessary. The passion behind Dorflinger’s statement is laudable, but it must be recognized that it is based on religious conviction, not on scientific induction or verified data.