Slashdot Mirror
Pope Denounces Some Biotech as Affront to 'Human Dignity'
eldavojohn writes "Today in a speech the pope denounced human cloning, embryonic stem cell research and artificial insemination, citing them as a violation of 'human dignity.' That said, the pope did 'appreciate and encourage' research on stem cells from non-embryonic cells in the human body. The pope encouraged the Vatican to be a leading voice in the philosophy and discussion of bioethics. 'Church teaching certainly cannot and must not weigh in on every novelty of science, but it has the task to reiterate the great values which are on the line and to propose to faithful and all men of good will ethical-moral principles and direction for new, important questions,' Benedict said."
I would like to extend our most honest "Damnit!" to the rest of the geek world.. this is gonna cause some serious headaches for me at church.
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
Who gives two shits what a kook who believes in invisible super-beings things? The man is irrational and would gladly have us living back in the dark ages.
Trolling is a art,
...I think the Pope has tourettes.
A former nazi party member shouldn't be throwing stones.
Kevin Smith on Prince
I wonder how he comes around to call cloning an 'affront to human dignity'. Exactly who's dignity is being affronted, the clones?
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Please listen to what the Pope is saying!!! I'm Catholic and I strongly believe the Pope is right! He's always right! Humans shouldn't play God. Please listen to the Pope and just stop what you're doing!! :(
STFU pope. If I want any shit out of you, I'll squeeze your fancy hat.
Maybe tommorow the crazy cat lady would like to give us some advice about why ...I don't know.
All I know is I'm not asking teh Pope anything about science.
There are thousands of good people pushing the limits of biotech to improve our lives. I don't care what someone who had nothing to do with the medical advances that have already improved our lives has to say about it.
I gotta say: if this is the first, or second, or tenth issue that "is gonna cause some serious headaches for you at church", you aren't paying very close attention.
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
Ethics? We don't need no steenkin' ethics!
...while wearing such a ridiculous hat? Dignified indeed!
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
I'm tired of religious nuts dictating morality and ethics.
What other people think of me is none of my business
Considering that the Pope is the head of one sect of a religion that preaches that humankind is inherently sinful and must seek forgiveness for being human through faith in Jesus Christ, I refuse to grant him any credence when he presumes to speak of "human dignity". Get rid of the doctrine of original sin, and then we can talk.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Meanwhile, who's the one building a gigantic clone army and giving Darth Vader life-sustaining bionic enhancements?
Sorry, wrong fairytale!
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
... to let somebody suffer with Parkinson's Disease or Alzheimer's. Guys like His Holiness are why I left the church.
"Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand." - Mark Twain
I have to admit, while the Church's stance on human cloning and embryonic stem cell research is not surprising (albeit as ridiculous as ever), but I wonder how did artificial insemination make its way to the hate list? I mean, isn't it just following God's degree to "be fruitful and multiply"? Sometimes I think the Church just compiles the list of the most important scientific fields that are likely to provide us with answers about the Universe, and flat-out denies them... for the sake of good old times.
But then I realized that by agreeing to artificial insemination, they agree to extra embryos being created, which would then be used for stem cell research (or they'd have to willingly destroy them). Wow, to go against reason AND God's decree, they must really hate embryonic stem cell a lot... or perhaps they just want to rake in some more donation from crazy people who want to blame ESC for the moral degeneration of our society.
Why is an embryonic stem cell "life"?
And a non-embryonic stem cell not "life"?
If we found the tech to create "embryonic" stem cells from non-embryonic stem cells would it then be OK to test on them?
This from a man who upholds the Inquisition's judgment upon Galileo, and was a member of the Hitler Jugend.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I for one think that the Catholic Church's relationship with science speaks for itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church#Human_sexual_behavior_and_reproductive_matters/
I hereby excommunicate this very silly pope.
PS: Every man, woman, and child is a pope. Non serviam.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
The man is also opposed to free access to condoms in AIDS-striken nations of Africa. Fine, preach all you want about abstinence and fidelity. But, many men will not listen (why should they, they are not even Christians) and visit prostitutes. Later they go home, have sex with their wives (and sometimes daughters) and have 5 infected children who will die before getting a chance to even consider their own spiritual believes.
Good job slaughtering 5 innocents to get to one sinner. I am tentatively considering myself to be a Christian, but this man should be indicted as a mass murderer comparable in scope to war criminals.
The main difference is that the Catholic church says that the soul is infused upon conception, while the muslims mainly believe that it is at birth the the soul arrives.
I can't be the only person who read that as, "Pope Denounces Some Biotch"
She was asking for it...
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
What do the candidates say about these subjects?
... do you know?
US citizens
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
We listen to engineers and scientists when they have demonstrated some expertise in their fields of expertise.
Considering how much scandal comes out of the religious leadership field, I'd say religious leaders are no more moral than ordinary people and have no better grasp of ethics than ordinary people.
Infuriate left and right
human life is not a fungal growth. before the second trimester, life is very much nothing but a blob, and completely undeserving of equal protection as a human being. before 3 months, what is growing in a woman after conception is worthy of the same level of consideration you would give to your next hamburger patty, and nothing more
where do we draw the line exactly? i don't know. beware anyone who does. all i know is that one month after conception as compared to 6 months after conception really are completely different measures, vastly different
the important thing is that because we don't know where to draw the line exactly does not mean we can't draw a line at all. and anyone who thinks that when a sperm meets an egg we get something that is equivalent to a human child is flat out lunatic religious fanatic
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I wonder how you reconcile this:
With this:
Whether you meant it or not, that's great satire, very Colbert-esque. May you be modded +5 Funny.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I guess someone got a little insecure and started ranting when china said they can stop the rain ...
Embryonic stem cells are extracted, destructively, from a viable human embryo. After extraction, the embryo is no longer viable, and dies. This is what pisses Sweet Baby Jesus off.
Better to keep quiet and be thought inconsistent than open your mouth and prove it.
Infuriate left and right
If you don't like the research, refuse the treatments when you are sick in the hospital. Why do some religious types feel they need to impart their beliefs on everyone else?
Don't agree with or like abortion - fine - don't have one. Don't like what you hear on the radio or see on TV - fine also, change the channel.
Just don't tell me what to do - I have a brain in my skull and I know how to use it independently.
-ted
Bart: How would I go about creating a half-man, half-monkey-type creature?
Ms.K: I'm sorry, that would be playing God.
Bart: God shmod! I want my monkey-man!
http://www.snpp.com/episodes/8F22.html
How about that, let's just stipulate that there is no god and be done with the pope already?
Whether god exists or not is irrelevant in any case, everything that we see in this universe can be explained without any divine forces, thus those forces are majorly irrelevant even if they existed. But just for the sake of simplicity let's declare that god is not a consideration where science is concerned.
You can't handle the truth.
This appears to be the original text of the speech, in Italian:
Discorso ai partecipanti alla Sessione Plenaria della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede
Lets try a thought experiment: pretent that the Dalai Lama had spoken the Pope's words. Are those words more or less palatible based on who says them?
You don't even need to be religious to see that the commodization of human life, to say nothing of unfettered transhumanism, are not, on their face, good things. Call me a pesimist, but I'm more with Bill Joy than Ray Kurzweil.
A final thought: if there was the slightest chance that, by a snap of the fingers, I could remove all the harm to others attributed to the Roman Catholic Church, I'd do it - and I'm Catholic. Unfortunately, none of the evils attributed to Catholicism in particular or religion in general would disappear. So the cause must be elsewhere.
I wonder what the Pope's opinion is on strong artificial intelligence and transhumanism?
Some leader of a church said genetic research is wrong? This is non-news flamebate
And I know I just bit...
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
No need to be a bigot, there is plenty of blame for violence, famine, disease, and death to go around between all the religions in the world.
Who cares if those who derive morality from a book that advocates stoning homosexuals to death are offended by the comparison? Many of us find Christianity offensive!
I have to hand it to the Catholic Church, dealing with dissenters has a 2000 year old tradition. It's not like management is pulling new rules out of their a**es or anything. I admire that, actually; they are pretty good at arguing their case, just browse the Vatican web site.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Is biotech less evil or more evil than homosexuality?
TFA only mentioned artificial insemination tangentially, where the Pope opposes creating embryos, screening out the ones prone to disease and then choosing from the remainder. It doesn't talk about artificial insemination directly.
I can see how that would be an affront to human dignity -- it basically says that people with, say, Downs Syndrome, are less worthy of living than those without.
The counter-example is this: suppose that sexual orientation has a genetic component; if the right genes are present, a person is more likely to be gay. Would it be acceptable for parents to screen out for that?
If the embryo is just a lump of cells, then what does it matter? It would be about as bad as deciding to remove a rainbow bumper sticker from a used car you just bought.
from an organization that has billions in assets when there are families of 6 living on a dollar a day sort of doesn't work for me for some reason.
aren't they violating the be fruitful and multiply clause? I think the catholic church should focus on religion, every time the pope tries to tell the world and it's governments what they should do in their personal lives they just end up looking backwards and foolish.
Normally I say judge the message and not the messager but in this case the message is an opinion that millions are expected to accept because of the messenger.
The man is a Nazi for god sake. Is he really entitled to a voice on the subject of ethical bioengineering?
but you must respect the hat!
this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
... condemning millions of Latin Americans to live in squalor as a result of overpopulation, stemming directly from your vendetta against contraception? ... refusing to abort the fetus in an ectopic pregnancy*? ... condemning hundreds of millions of people simply because they are inherently attracted to the same sex rather than the opposite? ... insisting that people in persistive vegetative states be kept alive for decades, with great expenditure of effort, despite no possibility of recovery?
Yes, I'd say that Catholicism is an affront to human dignity.
Thank you for your recent guidance on my medical issues, in particular my infertility. I have been wondering how to proceed. Now I understand it is God's will for me not to have children.
I will be sure to convey your disapproval to my sister that she allowed doctors to perform a Cesarean Section on her during a difficult childbirth. This was, after all, nothing more than medical intervention to allow procreation and must therefore be against God's will, correct?
I look forward to your continued leadership on these issues. In particular I will find inspiration in the way you will accept God's will by not seeking medical solutions to your future health issues.
A Good Catholic
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
At first glnce I read the headline as "Dope Denounces Some Biotech as Affront to 'Human Dignity'". Chalk it up to endorphins, the weather change made my arthritis hurt like hell yesterday. Now THAT was an affront to my human dignity, I'll tell you!
The pope may not be a dope, but the idea that artificial insemination is an "affront to human dignity" is a dopey idea. Many Catholic ideas are pretty dopey IMO (of course, I'm sure many Catholics will think some of my beliefs are pretty dopey as well).
An example of what I'm talking about is the "seven deadly sins". Where in the Bible did they get the idea that laziness is a sin? And don't point me to the Old Testament, because the old testament says eating pork is a sin. And how about lust? When a young man lusts after a young woman and the lust grows to love and they marry, how is that a sin?
There are in fact ten deadly sins. Moses brought them down from the mountain.
I would agree with the pope about human cloning, but most definitely not embryonic stem cell research. Rather than an affront to human dignity, it may lead to cures for diseases that ARE affronts to human dignity. Just ask Al Scheimers. Oh wait, Al is pissing his pants and drooling. Human dignity, you say?
-mcgrew
OT but why is a comment subject allowed fewer characters than a summary subject? And why was "human dignity" in quotations?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
How are you "life" but not a tumor? Would you object if we used some "radiation treatment" on you?
Creative Demolition
You know what the real affront to human dignity is?
Organized religion.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
The "dignity of man" referenced by the Catholic Pope, regardless of modern religion, is the basis of the enlightenment and of all modern secular humanist societies and of the concept of human rights. Once the concept of innate human dignity is gone, you end up with societies where human beings are nothing more than raw material for the State machine. As the concept fades you see inhumane state practices appear such as denying health care to the obese in the UK or mandatory abortions in China. The needs of people can be ignored when they become inconvenient or expensive to the state if there is no innate dignity of man.
I can't believe this guy is coming out now to tell us that we should stop "embryonic stem cell research" because it "shattered" human dignity. If you want to bring back some form of dignity how about letting those suffering a glimmer of hope based on sound science rather than false promise? Also I'd really like it if someone would send him the memo. We don't need to hurt embryos anymore so the pope's latest message comes too late proving how irrelevant the church is to this discussion.
I'm not Catholic, or an Atheist, but I think it's ironic that the atheists are bashing someone for saying what he believes in, while at the same time accusing him of bashing what they believe in. Let the man say what he wants, it's a free world!
Hmm, it seems interesting that the pope would be against scientific research. Let's see, if we took away all the things science gave us over the years where would we be?... oh yeah, back in the days when the church was in control of things. Interesting how when someone's model base of power is undermined by technological progress they try to disrupt it to grasp stubbornly to the old ways. Gee, who else does this now-a-days?... I think it starts with an R... Your time is over, stop pissing in our corn flakes.
I'm trying to stay on topic. Why bash Islam in a thread about the Pope's latest inane proclamation?
I write sci-fi for metalheads
>> let's just stipulate that there is no god and be done with the pope already?
Firstly let me make it clear that I personally do not follow any religion, so have no iterest in defending the christian church, however:
* There is no evidence that proves God doesn't exist. Until that is found your stipulation has no merit.
* His point seems to be that this stuff is an affront to human dignity, which has nothing to do with religion. E.g. I for example have dignity yet am not a follower of any religion.
Actually without reading more than the headline, I think the pope's point is very well made. Personally I feel scientists in some cases are definately going too far. I also have seen more than enough evidence to prove that most companies will do anything to make money for now, regardless of the ethics or wider implication of their actions.
... they just won't admit that life begins at birth. There's a reason Christians celebrate birthdays and not fuckdays. All other posturing is just ... posturing ... in defiance of thousands of years of tradition.
Infuriate left and right
It is odd, backwards thinking, and outright excessive for the vast majority of the posters who are stating the denouncement of artificial insemination is the only option for couples who can't have children.
In many countries across the globe, there are large legitimate orphanages with many orphans seeking new parents. I find it closed-minded the posters here choose not to recognize many of these orphanages are backed by religious organizations including the Catholic Church. It's not like the Church denounces abortion and artificial insemination... they actually "walk the talk" when funding the alternative.
In contrast to adoption, artificial insemination costs a lot of money and time. The procedure is not perfect, fails many times, and each time can cost in the tens of thousands of US dollars.
Anyone with a brain doesn't seriously listen to fairy tale figures anyway. If he [and other religious wackos] wants to remain swathed in some ancient story let him - the rest of us are trying out this thing called 'progress'.
Look, I don't even recognize the papacy; but the silly attacks on this Pope on Slashdot have got to stop. You aren't even using logic and reasoning in your arguments. You just made two disjointed statements. The fact that the Pope belives in God (obviously) does not imply that he thinks we should abandon Science and Technology. In fact he never attacked anything regarding science. He just made his and the Catholic Churches opinion about the moral-ethical debate surrounding certain research and procedures known. There is nothing wrong with that. Religious people are not the only people who see an ethical dilemna within certain research and procedures. Do you mean to imply that all research is acceptable including research on unwilling medical subjects?
I can't believe I am posting about this. I'm a Catholic, I'm a scientist, and my kids are the result of artificial insemination.
In my local Catholic community, these things are not discussed. Instead I hear mostly about practicing non-violent conflict resolution and a life time of charitable endeavors. That all works for me on the local level. Beyond that, the Catholic hierarchy can go pound sand. The pope and most of the clergy that rank high enough to wear silly hats tragically waste their energy on needlessly divisive issues. I'd rather they worked on poverty and resolving conflict without war.
Get rid of the doctrine of original sin, and then we can talk.
... that is pretty bold. If you had any familiarity with the book they follow then you'd understand how silly that sounds.
Good luck, it's a concept laid out pretty clearly in the Bible.
You can disagree with catholicism, you can disagree with Christianity, but asking a group to disavow a belief just to make you feel "comfortable"
Well, he is.
Natural insemination is SUCH a dignified process.
-JWR
We really aren't all that far from simple cultures in a lab, if you look at it from a religious point of view. god is the scientist, we are the cultures, and the earth is one giant petri dish.
To quote Waking Life: "Where do all the new souls come from?"
Religious folk may say we are "playing god" by "growing" humans...but are we? We humans can make another human, but can we create a soul? If your answer to that question is no and you are a religious person, then where is the problem? We are simply creating flesh. The "miracle of life" is still sitting on god's shelf. If your answer to that question is yes, then what relevance does god have in our society at this point in our species' history?
Living With a Nerd
While I agree that Benedict isn't as cool as John Paul, He's just saying to look at the big picture. There's plenty of research that we can do without splicing up humans and whatnot. Just like in Jurassic Park.
What's the value of information that you don't know?
It is disheartening to see bigotry & hate speach alive & well on Slashdot. Here's another thought experiment. Try replacing the word "Catholic" with another group of your choice. Words and attitudes that are rightfully condemned in another context are suddenly permissible when speaking about Catholicism. What does THAT have to do with reason?
Nerd Denounces Some 'Human Dignity' as Affront to Biotech.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
It's like it says in Proverbs 12:3 'Tis better to die from cancer than be cured and live a life without dignity'
I have nothing compelling to say
I was a little surprised to see artificial insemination in the list of technologies, though. My understanding is that the church's position on abortion and birth control stemmed from the sanctity of life. Artificial insemination would seem to be perfectly compatible with this idea, so I'd be interested to see what the argument against it was.
Having said that, being uncomfortable with some of the advances in biosciences not new, nor is it unique to Catholics. I think many people, and not just the religious types, would be uncomfortable with some of these issues. Actually, given the potential of some of these technologies, I'd be disturbed if people weren't at least a little uncomfortable. While I hardly think it rises to the level of an affront to human dignity, the issue is important enough that having the debate is worthwhile.
Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack.
The Pope has to say stuff like this -- it's his job -- but most Catholics don't actually care what he thinks. If they did, most Catholic families would end up with at least five kids, and that just ain't the case.
Actually, I had this very conversation with someone deeply religious a few years ago. Their view was that not only can we not create a soul, but that a clone would not have a soul. As such any cloned individual would merely be a pawn of Satan, a mass number of which would invariably rise up against us militarily if they were created in any significant number.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Should a church that profitted from the slave trade, collaborated with the nazis, hid the molestation of children, and is the main reason the US Constitution requires a seperation of church and state be condemning anything?
Yea, the fucker has time to denounce biotech, but not the time to denounce pedophiles and child mollesters amongst its ranks. They know nothing of the sort. All catholics should die.
to declare a month old blob inside a woman as the equal of a human child in human dignity
thereby impoverishing the human dignity of the woman who is carrying the blob
after 3, 4 months, ok, fine. but before that, it simply is not a human being and has no need for the talk of human dignity in any way whatsoever. and to do so threatens the human dignity of the woman carrying the not-yet-human blob
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
Why bash Islam in a thread about the Pope's latest inane proclamation?
Well, you did bash Christianity in general on a thread about the Pope...
Patriot - A fan of expanding government power and spending while not wanting to pay higher taxes.
The parent is right.
Lots of people here talk about rights for those who are in Guantanamo Bay, which shows they have some insight on human dignity. Are they are choosing some sort of a-la-carte viewpoint on human dignity or are they using human dignity as a facade for anti-Americanism?
Nit: Augustine of Hippo didn't write any part of what most Christians consider to be the Bible.
how to invest, a novice's guide
does not apply to a one month old blob in a human woman, whose human dignity in turn is imperiled by those who consider the blob inside her the equal of a full human child
no, it simply isn't
the cause human dignity is not served by applying the concept of human dignity to things that aren't human
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
As an ex-Christian, I have every right to do so.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Actually, assuming you believe that human life begins at conception, nothing in this anouncement is even questionable. If you agree with that statement then obviously any research that can lead to the destruction of that life is wrong; it is basically murder of a fellow, and absolutely helpless, human being.
I for one however, don't agree with that statment. There is more to being human than having human DNA and the potential for growth. Humanity is about self awareness, intelligence, and conciousness. An embryo lacks these things simply because it hasn't yet developed the required circuitry for them.
For the record IaaC (I am a Catholic), but that doesn't mean I can't think for myself.
It is unfortunate that your conversation took place with someone who subscribed to the "all things not good are from the devil" type of thinking, it could have been a much more interesting conversation...
Living With a Nerd
What the hell does that actually mean?
Today in a speech the pope denounced human cloning, embryonic stem cell research and artificial insemination
On this issue, anyway. Most people who are against embryonic stem-cell research because it kills human life don't give a single thought to the unused embryos created by in vitro fertilization that have to be disposed of.
Rob
Then I'm sure you are familiar with Psalm 51:5, Romans 5:12-14,18-21? All of which state humans are sinful from conception, and sin is passed on from one generation to the next? I'm sure you have.
as far as I'm concerned, adhering to Christianity means that you must ask God to forgive you for having been born human.
Not for being born human, but forgiveness from sin. There's a subtlety in there you are missing.
Dear Pope- Fuck you. You suck, and I hope you die from some horribly painful disease that could have been cured through stem cell research. I am glad you are a pope, though, because you are a virgin (loser...), and that means you will leave no genetic offspring when you die. Now, take off your stupid hat. It makes you look gay. Flamboyantly gay.
Sincerely,
A former catholic.
FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
There is no evidence that proves God doesn't not exist. Until that is found your stipulation has no merit.
That's why proving imaginary things don't exist isn't science.
Sorry, but the burden of proof in on those making the positive assertion.
Apart form that, you don't appear to understand that a stipulation is a stipulation - an agreement on a state of affairs. It doesn't require logical support, merely the assent of the involved parties.
doesn't mean there is no line
a guy who in povery and desperation forces himself against his better senses to steal a loaf of bread to feed his family isn't really a criminal
if that same man continues stealing, to the point that he enjoys it, and winds up killing a homeowner while in the process of robbing jewelry, that man is now certainly a criminal
the question is: exactly when did he become a criminal?
i don't know, you don't know
but he most certainly is a criminal now, and wasn't a criminal before
what we can't do is say "because we don't know exactly where to draw the line, we cannot call this man a criminal. because we don't know where to the draw the line, we cannot draw the line at all"
oh yes we can! and we should, out of moral necessity
so it is the same observation with blobs, fetuses, and babies
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
As an ex-Christian, I have every right to do so.
As a fellow ex-Christian, I didn't say you didn't. I was merely pointing out that bashing Christianity in general on a thread regarding the pope is just about as offtopic as bashing Islam on a thread regarding the Pope. The Pope may be a Christian, but you'll find about about a billion Christians on the planet that will tell you in no uncertain terms that the Pope does not speak for them.
Patriot - A fan of expanding government power and spending while not wanting to pay higher taxes.
David and the Apostle Paul both spell it out pretty clearly.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
I've got no religious axe to grind, but the notion of the Pope, leader of an all-male band of wealth-hording pious virgins (sprinkled with assorted paedophiles), exhorting opinions on sex (a somewhat undignified act) and human dignity, is simply priceless. Should he wish to improve his own dignity rating (before waxing on ours), he could lose the hat and the robes and the mumbo-jumbo and go back to university so he could understand the things he's yapping about.
Geesh Mr. Pope, shut up already. Your influence far outweighs the respect your opinions garner by anyone with half a brain. And that probably makes you dangerous. Look at all the sick (aids) and starving (famine, big families) people in the 3rd world you've talked into avoiding condoms. Technically you might be responsible for more deaths than Bush.
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
Sepultura did it before (1993, with Biotech is Godzilla).
And I denounce all religion an affront to "human intelligence".
was in a emotional or financial situation where bringing a baby to term would cause her undue stress, resulting in a child she did not love, and all the psychological f***ups that accompany that, i would prefer that my mother not continue her pregnancy past the 3 month old part, and she would have done nothing wrong by my judgment
because before 3 months, what i was inside my mother was not me, and was not alive in any human sense
there is hamburger on my plate. i will eat it, and it will become the stuff of my organs and bones, it will become human life. so i should look at the hamburger on my plate with the spiritual and legal reverence of a human life?
pfffffffft
same observation applies to the blob inside a woman before 3 months
it's POTENTIAL human life. NOT human life. in any spiritual, intellectual, logical, moral, or legal consideration you can devise
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
That's why, in the original post, I specified that the Pope is the leader of one sect of a Christianity, a religion that considers humanity to be sinful by nature.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
I wouldn't have been able to keep a straight face if someone told me that. I used to have fun with those sorts of people by getting them to contradict themselves using logic, but it got old after I realized that no matter how blatantly stupid or contradictory their statements they'll never change them. For something along the same vein, check out the movie Inherit the Wind.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Why should the null hypothesis be "God exists"?! That's a terrible hypothesis.
Your point is easily refuted by simple subsitution.
"There is no evidence that proves an invisible pink/purple unicorn with 12 teeth is not sitting on my desk".
Should you accept that based on faith alone until someone proves me wrong?
THINK!
"* There is no evidence that proves God doesn't exist. Until that is found your stipulation has no merit."
You can't prove a negative, or I can turn it around and ask you to prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.
I'm not too sure how an organization that spent decades hiding pedophiles has any business lecturing anyone on human dignity. The only thing, apparently, more infinite than God is the human capacity for intense hypocrisy.
Your statement sounds nice and everything, but it's awfully flawed.
a) The Catholic Church has not hidden pedophiles. SOME PRIESTS AND BISHOPS have. By your standards, the United States should disappear from the face of the earth since they has decades abusing human rights. Right? RIGHT?
b) Usually the priests who lecture people on human dignity are NOT the ones hiding pedophiles. If you disagree, I challenge you to mention anything evil John Paul II has done, because he lectured A LOT about human dignity.
c) All catholics *ARE* the Catholic Church. If you want to say something bad about priests and bishops, don't say "Catholic Church". Say "the Clergy".
d) By generalizing, you make all the good priests look worse than the bad ones. Because it's the bad ones who are pedophiles, and the good priests are the ones fighting for human rights. Oh but since they're all catholic anyway, they're all part of the same corrupt organization and all should be labelled as hypocrites. Perhaps we should label Martin Luther King Jr. as a hypocrite too, since he endorsed christianity (he was a Lutheran pastor, after all) and Christianity is full of hypocrites?
I'm amazed how bashing and name calling granted you insightful. You'd be a wonderful Fox News reporter.
Priest: Good morning everyone. A reading, from the letter of John, thou shalt not spill thy seed in a sock and place it at the bottom the hamper." The word of the Lord. Congregation: Praise be to God
Family Guy, Season 5, Boys Don't Cry
Iraq billions
Did he see that in his crystal ball?
A fool and his lamb are worth two in the bush.
And I'm a scientist - so let's test that. I'll hold a piano over his head suspended by a pulley and a rope. The Pope can say that he declares gravity to be heresy. I'll let go of the rope.
If he really does define reality, he should be in no danger. I have a theory on how the test would end, though.
The short of it is these people should not be dictating to scientists. Why?
Read up on what they did to Galileo, for daring to suggest the Earth is not the center of the universe - which they just got around to forgiving him for, which took them until 1992 to fucking get around to.
There is no way these people should have any input whatsoever in a scientific context.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
There is no evidence that proves God doesn't exist. Until that is found your stipulation has no merit. - stipulation does not need a merit, it is an assertion. I am proposing a zero base, a point of reference for dealing with anyone who may want to impose his/her religious authority over the matters of the secular (and science is secular regardless of the particular people who are involved in it.)
His point seems to be that this stuff is an affront to human dignity, which has nothing to do with religion. E.g. I for example have dignity yet am not a follower of any religion. - he is preaching from his religious authority and thus he is not as impartial as you may want to make us all believe.
You can't handle the truth.
So far as I can see, consciousness requires a brain of sufficient complexity. It's conceivable that something else (e.g. a 'soul') is also needed, but a brain is a minimal requirement. Before about a month, there's nothing even arguably a brain present. After a month, from what I understand, the various parts of the brain are at least present in preliminary stages, though they don't all actually hook up together for a couple months yet. I don't have to like abortion before the first month, but I don't see how there's any actual other person to take into account then, and it's the woman's choice then. After that, there's at least a decent chance that there might be another actual person there, and I'm a lot less comfortable with abortions after that point. (Of course, if the mother's life is in danger, it's her choice - you can't force someone to risk their life to save someone else.)
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Ancient people knew very well how long pregnancy lasted. They may not have been able to know the fuckday down to less than a week, but you know darn well that if a baby was born 8 months after the wedding, tongues wagged.
Infuriate left and right
Technically, you can prove something doesn't exist by proving that it is logically impossible for it to exist (and this is possible with the Judeo-Christian God - e.g. Theodicy Paradox). The point the GP was making was that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That said, it doesn't really say anything of substance - the same argument can be made either way, ad infinitum. So the GP could have said just as much by saying nothing at all.
... and yet the "total depravity" argument and the "the original sin is procreation" argument didn't appear in any documented form in mainstream early Christian thought until Augustine, and only those theological families which spring from Augustinianism follow those beliefs. Given nearly three centuries from a very conservative dating of the earliest parts of the New Testament and the Council of Nicea, the lack of manuscript evidence for both beliefs prior to Augustine is rather telling that he provided the first documented apology for such beliefs.
how to invest, a novice's guide
Artificial Insemination is an interesting one. Basically it is using externam equipment to produce a fertilized egg and then insert it into a woman who otherwize cannot succeed through normal means. It is a well-known practice and can even, for the squeamish, be performed for a married couple using only their eggs and sperm, no external players are needed.
/.ers might scoff at the pope and in many countries even ones with large Catholic populations like the U.S. his claims don't carry the weight of law. But in modern democratic Italy he can still arrainge for consenting married couples who want to raise healthy children of their own to be denied it because the process is "an affront".
Interestingly this procedure, well-accepted in most western societies is banned in Italy even for married couples using their own genetic material thanks to the Church. The argument goes something along the lines of: "If god wanted them to have kids he would let them do it normally."
It is interesting because most
Such grandiose speech from a former member of Hitler Jugend. If anything, his election as Pope is far more offensive to 'human dignity'
The soul arrives when the man gets an erection. At which point any failure to impregnate a nearby woman is murder.
-- $SIGNATURE
* There is no evidence that proves God doesn't exist. Until that is found your stipulation has no merit.
There is no evidence that proves ghosts don't exist. Until that is found, your [argument that ghosts don't exist] [has no merit]
There is no evidence that proves midichlorians don't exist. Until that is found, your [argument that the force doesn't exist] [has no merit]
There is no evidence that proves invisible giant elephants don't exist. Until that is found, your [argument that they don't exist] [has no merit]
There is no evidence that proves undetectable/invisible spherical beings don't exist. Until that is found, your [argument that they don't exist] [has no merit]
There is no evidence that proves the Mormon golden plates didn't exist. Until that is found, Mormons are right.
There is no evidence that proves we're not part of the Matrix. Until that is found [your argument that the Matrix doesn't exist] [has no merit]
Same goes for anything.
Proving that some things don't exist is practically impossible.
We gather evidence. The evidence points to possible conclusions. Some more likely than others.
There is no proof of the tooth Fairy, we don't believe in it (her?).
There is no proof of Santa Clause, we don't believe in him.
There is no proof of many other creatures from many other cultures, we don't believe in them.
As kids you believed in them because there was evidence... you got presents. Then you got told the truth.
Same goes for God. Why do adults still believe in God?
You do not need to believe in God to have ethics.
As for ethics, I do agree that science has many gray areas. There are gray areas for any Society.
How did this BS bait get modded insightful?
His stipulation may be devoid of merit, but for precisely the wrong reasons. It is *NOT* on him to prove that god does not exist. The onus lies upon any individual making any sort of statement about the existence of a divine being. And since it's damned well impossible to refute the positive hypothesis--it is not a theory, or even a 'statement' by any well thought out definition, since the veracity of it can never be affirmed or rejected. The negative hypothesis--that there is no divine being may be for him to prove by the reasoning warped religious nutjobs--but quite frankly it's easy to refute that hypothesis--"God" need only manifest its presence. It's an infinitely better theory than the presence of a God, since at least that theory can be rejected! As far as stipulations go, a stipulation against God goes further than a stipulation for god simply because it's the only stipulation in that regard which can *possibly* ever be rejected.
Personally, I think the parent should not speak of science until they've at least studied a bit of philosophy, from which good science has originated. Keep your stinking idiocy out of my science, and I'll keep my science out of your fool churches.
And if I'm wrong...see you in hell.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
No, seriously, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
I was made in a laboratory, and I turned out fine. I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
John Paul II might have considered it, but Benedict is extremely conservative and is living up to the 'placeholder' assessment that most people had of him at the time of his election.
JPII was a very conservative pope. He was just conservative with a smile. Honestly, I'd actually appreciate conservatism in religion as something to live up to. We should feel squeemish on some level about creating living things willy nilly, simply so that we can experiment with them. It doesn't even really matter if a human fetus is human or not. It is a life, and we are taking it, and not only for the most noble of reasons.
Ultimately, the Pope is on the right side of this issue. A few generations down the road, we will look back on what we have done with animal testing and embryonic testing, and realize that we are in fact barbaric.
This is my sig.
"* There is no evidence that proves God doesn't exist. Until that is found your stipulation has no merit." I propose my theory a giant ball of cream cheese is at the edge of the universe. Can you disprove that? No - well then until you can we should all assume the ball of cream cheese to be true.
Bow-ties are cool.
Yes, especially since the Church is a big fan of Jesus (wouldn't a "virgin birth" by necessity be the result of some sort of artificial insemination?)
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
There is no evidence that proves God doesn't exist. Until that is found your stipulation has no merit.
Trying to prove a negative? This is why you're not a scientist.
Oil tycoons, and the auto industry were not very happy when scientists started saying that their products were hurting the earth. Of course, they kept on doing it and encouraging every one else to. And they can continue to now. However, there are long term consequences for doing the wrong thing, even if you disagree that its wrong. Rush Limbaugh can get together a bunch of people and have an anti global warming party, and they can feel all nice a fuzzy that its culturally acceptable to disbelieve in global warming and laugh at Al Gore and the Nobel committee. It still doesn't mean they are correct, or that there won't be severe consequences for everyone if we don't do something about it.
The Pope is speaking on similar moral truths. If allow ourselves to start restricting further and further the definition of life, it will become easier for us to eliminate everyone else that falls outside those boundaries. Humans can't be trusted to decide who lives and who dies.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
your moderation is a credit to you
the real problem with the abortion debate is not that there are people who want to kill babies ready to be born so they can go to the disco, nor that there are people ready to charge women with murder who take the day after pill. both of these positions are extreme lunatic fringe positions
in reality, your average prolifer is willing to accept abortion in the first month or two, and the average prochoicer is disgusted at the idea of killing a baby at 6 or 7 months
and the rabble rousing demagogues paint one side or the other as if they were the baby killing or mother crucifying extremists, and people kneejerk in emotional disgust at these stereotypes rather than agreeing to be moderate
when the reality is, most everyone can appreciate the nuance like you. they just can't work their way through the proganda and drama from either side of the debate. and not to paint this as a sad commentary on humanity, because it is a subject matter fraught with emotional pain and loaded landmines of symbolism
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You'll be sorry when I and my army of me-clones takes control of the Vatican. We'll see who's laughing THEN!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
'Human dignity' not defined.
"Let's face it, it's a good story. Accuracy would kill it."
Don't worry about it. They'll fight biotech as hard as they can. Science will prevail eventually after being delayed 10years. Some life saving cures will come out undoubtedly. Then they'll be talking about how they are totally different from those dinosaurs against biotech and ask for their pill that they obviously deserve.
... dinosaurs? psychology, electricity.... Feel free to add more.
Then they will pick different bits of scripture to quote showing how God wanted biotech and things will move on.
Happens once every 50~100 years nobody seems to mind that the infallible word of god is so easily changed.
Note (various religions have opposed): Basically ALL astronomy, biology, brain/mind, basically ALL chemistry, evolution(still in the works), Creation of the earth, age of the universe, the sun will come up without the aid of human sacrifice,
but you can point at 2 months and say "not human life, with certainty" and you can point at 5 months and say "human life, with certainty"
does that answer your questions?
and as for your other question: a fully developed human being in all ways but one: without a functional brain, is not a human being
but nice try with the missing organs the fat people, but you fail it in terms viable analogy
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Your defense of the religions' bad behavior is unimpressive.
<irony>
I can't wait for the Pope's arguments to be distorted and mocked here. Because we all know that Holy Experimental Science is alpha and omega of all our questions and that, like every rational process, it is perfect and gives all answers. Sure, programming software is rational and therefore so perfectly suited to our needs that debugging is blasphemy...
</irony>
This post is displayed with recycled electrons
Remind me again - why are we still listening to this old fool and the rest of his ilk? I'm sorry but wearing a large floppy hat does not make you an expert in any of the world's issues, especially science. Do your mystical mumbo-jumbo behind closed doors where it belongs and leave the rest of the world out of your bigotries...
who speaks of god touching into a woman's womb and doing work needs to take a college freshman course in developmental biology. it's a serious of biological processes, not magic form the invisble skyman
the abrahamic/ christian point of view is simply unworthy of respect or authority, for being simpleminded and childish on the subject
at 5 months, i say you have a human life, unerringly determined
at 2 months, i say you have human life, unerringly determined
by the most sober tenets of scientific determination fo the formation of the human brain
meaning after 5 months, you can talk murder, and bfore 2 months, you can talk of nothing but unliving blob, hamburger patties if you will
and my authority is cold hard sober scientific fact
sorry this counters your old dusty books
but you're simply factually wrong
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
How can you consider yourself a Catholic if you disagree with a fundamental Church teaching? Isn't that just hypocrisy?
So if we accept your answer you would be fine with killing those in a persistent vegetative state?
There is no evidence that the FSM doesn't exist.
Yet, strangely, there is clear evidence that your mind has a somewhat sketchy existence. It is clearly malfunctioning at any rate.
You're right that this is a statement to re-inforce the church teaching on human life, but the issue is not whether a cloned human is a person with a soul, etc.
The issue is that a human being is given life by God. The way God intended that is through the pro-creative cooperation with a man and a woman. This stuff is dicussed fairly thoroughly and much more precisely than I can phrase it in Pope John XXIII's encyclical Humanae Vitae. You can get a brief outline of the points by looking up relevant entries in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (although both documents are limited in their technological aspects).
Cloning steps outside this form and attempts to create a human through primarily artificial means. The Church considers that an affront to human dignity, and sees in it not only an attempt to work around God's natural order, but a real danger of abusing the person thus created (harvesting organs, deliberately engineering traits to be exploited, etc). Also, the pope addressed the creation of human embryos, which the church maintains are human life, in an artificial manner especially if the purpose is to kill them for research.
Of course, one specific dangers is the creation of either inferior or defective humans, or hybrids. That would raise the question of humanity, baptism, etc as you mentioned rather directly, but goes beyond what Pope Benedict was discussing here, but as a start consider that the church regards the disabled the same as anyone else spiritually.
And please, please, everyone note that he did not condemn, and in fact encouraged stem cell research, on the conditions that it does not abuse human life. Also, he did not say anything along the lines of the scientific community should obey the church's every whim, but rather that the scientific community should not forget its consience, and that the church must try to help guide that conscience through rational discussion.
I don't understand why people are so obsessed with using Adult stem cells.
Correct me if I am wrong, but using Adult stem cells seems to have the same ethical problems as embryonic ones. Adult stem cells are only useful if they are modified to become Totipotent [wikipedia.org]. Which means -- like an embryo -- they have the ability to turn into a human.
Don't using Adult stem cells have the same ethical implications as embryonic stem cells? If not, then what is the ethical argument against killing an embryo?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Also no evidence against the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There's only one reason why people are willing to give *any* credence to the idea of a sentient, divine, supernatural creator that has human characteristics and that's because they were raised, scared, extorted or cajoled to believe so.
Yes, but I think you're missing the point; he's using his status as a religious leader as his credential for commenting on human dignity, which, IMHO, is horse shit. Some things that are affronts to human dignity include, but aren't limited to:
And, most relevant to this situation...
Where exactly does he derive his moral authority from? From an old book that's essentially the greatest hits of Hebrew scripture, four contradictory accounts of the life of a guy who spoke Aramaic but are mysteriously written in Greek, a couple letters and the rantings of a crazy guy trapped on an island? If people want to believe that, fine. If people want to refuse treatment based on these kinds of "morals," fine. But the rest of us, who are interested in helping people, shouldn't be forced to live in the dark ages. Don't forget that dissection for research purposes used to be considered blasphemy on largely the same grounds. Where would modern medicine be if we didn't actually have any idea of where things were located in the body and how they worked?
>>* There is no evidence that proves God doesn't exist. Until that is found your stipulation has no merit.
How in the fuck do you find evidence of something not existing for something that doesn't exist? Unfalsifiable BS in my opinion.
How about this: The claims about Gods(TM) made by pretty much all religions, from the shape of the Earth to the origins of the universe, have been thoroughly trampled by scientific advances. Therefore the Gods(TM) themselves, unfalsifiable as they are, do NOT exist.
Sorry, I'm edgy this afternoon. No caffeine for 20 hours and counting.
"What is the answer?" (Silence) "In that case, what is the question?" --Gertrude Stein
who came out of a coma after 20 years, if i remember correcty, story last year i think
i would definitely say that someone who had their brain excised from their skull in a car accident, who is now otherwise fully alive biologically on a respirator, is worthy of disposal, as they are already dead in terms of brain activity
but your vegetative state question is loaded. it's the same as asking about a 3 or 4 month old fetus. 2 months, definitely not human life. 5 months, definitely human life. and in between you have a grey area
and with people in a persistent vegetative state you have your grey area. a doctor could point to a brain scan and say this person will never be alive in terms of brain activity ever again, and he could bet his medical carteer on it. is he right? what about the guy who woke up after 20 years from a coma?
guess what: welcome to the real world. no simple answers. it's a grey area. you could go either way. i would probably err on the side of caution, and keep the person alive in a vegetative state. but i certainly wouldn't be ready to howl with high holy moral judgment calls if the family said the person should be taken off a respirator
because if you have any intellectual or moral honesty about you, you know its a grey area, which means you can't judge with fire and brimstone. you simply don't know the answer
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Oh. Well, that makes it alright then."
Funny that you ask him to avoid being a prick when that was your asshole-esque response to him proving you wrong.
Fuck off douche, YOU were a cunt first. Don't be surprised that when a cunt's around, some pricks show up.
to 'Human Dignity'.
:-)
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Keep your noses out of ladies privates...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Now the statement follows a request from the Pope that Cardinal Groer give up his duties and is being taken as a sign that the investigation has found against him. Citation
I think 'ignore' might be a bit of literary flare, getting a full blown Papal Investigation going isn't exactly a small task. The Pope is somewhat busy, running the largest single group of people in the world. It probably took as long as it did to get started. And in two months they ask for the Cardinal's resignation. I wouldn't call that covering up.
I think Rob Schneider movies are an affront to human dignity, but I don't see the Pope sounding off about that.
That may be the "official" reason, but the real reason is that he found an error in the Flawless Undisputed Work of God.
A quote:
In 1614 a Dominican priest filed charges at the Office of the Inquisition. Galileo was to respond by writing extraordinarily long letters which were circulated and became subject of debate. The most influential churchman of his age, Cardinal Bellamarine was to say of Galileo's theories: "a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also likely to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false".
His actual crime was noticing that The Book has A Problem.
If you'd like to see an even better example of this, check out Giordano Bruno. His crimes were:
What did he say? Basically the same thing as Galileo - that the "heavens" are simply other stars like our sun, the comets weren't messengers from God, etc. Read it here.
Oh yeah, they burned his ass at the stake for that.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
A man who says that "yes, AIDS is bad, but condoms are worse" does not have a moral leg to stand on. As far as I'm concerned, to hell with the pope.
If we can do the same research without destroying embryos, I would support that. But how many people will die in the lag time before we get there? In the calculus of existence, how much is one embryo worth? Are they worth more or less once they get older and die from some disease that would be curable if we had experimented more with embryonic stem cells earlier?
-- Why, yes, I am a compulsive devil's advocate. Why do you ask?
I'm not arguing you turning away. My point is, how can you expect a religion to remove something rooted deep in its theology, just for your comfort? That is essentially what your first post said.
A soul is the form (i.e. formal cause -- see Aquinas) of a particular body. "Cloned souls" or "getting a part of a soul" are simply not meaningful ideas. A clone has its own soul by definition because it has its own body, and living cells which are no longer part of a body do not carry a "piece" of the soul with them, since the soul is fundamentally related to the body as a whole.
The Pope's position is based on three principles which are acknowledged as part of Catholic teaching:
1. Human beings exist as such from fertilization onward
2. No innocent human being should be killed
3. Human reproduction is properly confined to sex
In part, in this particular case, he is arguing that they should be respected in order to prevent the "commoditization" of human life.
DNA just wants to be free...
... The need for Baptism? Being "born again"? As Paul wrote, the "washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit"? Jesus literally calls coming to faith a "second birth" (John 3:3), that birth replacing the sinful birth ...
> PS: Every man, woman, and child is a pope.
Pope (from Latin: papa, Papa, father; from Greek: papas / = priest originating from pater; = father)
(source)
You're considerably less than half right on that one, unless there are a lot of women who are fathers, let alone those men who aren't fathers at all.
Popes in Discodianism
Sometimes my arms bend back.
The Pope is a position granted by adherents of the Catholic Church. You can try to minimize its importance all you want but your declaration is irrelevant and immature.
I certainly would not want his position, I am not as firm in my beliefs as he is. As such I am also not as trapped either. The Pope of modern days must first respect his fellow Catholics and that means staying the course with little deviation. He walks a fine line in that while he does have a great amount of knowledge; don't fool yourself in believing him ignorant, while that may offer you solace in your belief he is far from it. In fact I figure he is well educated in this issue and its that education which puts a great difficulty before him. The Church can no longer afford to ignorant of science but it does not have to sit idly by and allow science to run over man.
The mission of the Church for some time has been directed to preserving the dignity of man. Yes we can dig up history and throw that in his face and the followers of any religion. The important issue is how it goes forward. What used to amaze me no longer does, people will flock to a politician offering a chicken in their pot, knowing full well its a lie, yet begrudge a man for holding to his principles. We will celebrate a whoring celebrity, a deceitful politician, and the almighty dollar, yet laugh at someone who is offers his beliefs to us.
What does it say about us? What does it say about him? The Church will be here long after many of us. It is through declarations like this that give us insight into how its going forward. While all religions have their radicals the leader of any stable religion can no longer afford such. Still they cannot stand still. He has opened a large door and taken a big step but here many are chastising him for not taking more steps. Give them time. They are monolithic and essentially eternal. They cannot he held to the same clock we hold ourselves. We make a decision and it usually affects us solely, the Church makes a decision and it affects tens of millions. As such their steps must be much more carefully thought out and delivered. I think he has made a great opening. He has relieve many Catholics who are in this line of research of many choices of faith that burdens them. He has given them freedom that many felt they may not have had. While he still have put barriers up he has shown some flexibility which allows the Church and its followers to go forward.
Rome was not built in a day, don't expect the Church to change in one either.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Am I the ONLY person who read this as: "Pope Denounces Some Biotch as Affront to 'Human Dignity'"
Who the hell is he to tell me that my daughter is some sort of abomination just because we had to use IVF to conceive her? What kind or arrogant twit is the pope anyway? Keep your stinkin' religion to yourself and don't be telling the whole world what to do. There are enough real problems in the world to deal with ... we don't need more pontificating.
The Church only denounces it because they can't effectively persecute those who practice it. Poor babies. There is no human dignity when it comes to the Catholic Church, but what they mandate.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Such a comment just confirms what I've said before about Atheists.
Nice generalization. I'm an atheist, but just because I don't believe in that superstitious junk doesn't mean I give a damn whether you have an open mind (by my definition, or yours). I don't.
In a recent announcement by the pope today he said "Those round wheels will be the death of us! You cant have people Going places!" He later amended "but those square wheels you are free to experiment with all you like". Thanks pope, and now back to the stone age.
i'll accept his denunciation as internally consistent (i'll say nothing about whether i agree with his position otherwise) as soon as he also decries some of his god's actions as affronts to Human Dignity.. until then
The fact that people are still buying into the religion industry in 2008 is absurd. This is what we get for having crappy education and faith-based government in the U.S.--people who care about what some religious spokesperson says.
Teapot, motherfucker.
Teapot.
Who died and made him king?
Who cares what some over dressed pimp that pushes a bunch of old tired worn out ideas to the masses?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"no real brain activity but IN THE FUTURE he might"
the hamburger on my plate. i will eat it. it will become my organs and my bones. so the hamburger on my plate will become at some point in the future, genuine human life. therefore, it is worthy of the spiritual and moral reverence of human life
no
something that potentially will be human is not in any moral or intellectually valid argument to be treated the same as human life
your argument is flat out logically invalid
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Some science shatters human dignity ... the pope doesn't know the half of it. He was never a graduate student in the sciences.
I'd suggest that the vast majority of believers haven't honestly considered the possibility there is no god, or that they might've been raised to believe in the wrong one. Indeed, to deny the existence of the Abrahamic god is an unforgivable sin.
Indoctrination does not really lend itself to free choice; people are tremendously easy to manipulate. It's one of the oldest skills, and now one of the most perfected.
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
potatoe head denounces some biatches as affront to human dignity!
The Church excommunicated folks. Secular powers "burned his ass at the stake for that." Big misconception that is thrown around quite frequently.
Things were different back then. The Church and the State were *not* separated at that point in history. They were intertwined. There were no wholly secular powers in Europe at that time, at least none that I am aware of. That's why the "separation of church and state" clause in the First Amendment in the United States Constitution was such a novel idea at the time.
You'll notice that every single one of the charges brought against Bruno was an offense against the Church. Not a singular charge is a secular crime.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
You can't take the sky from me...
Well, in the words of Richard Dawkins, "There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out."
At the risk of starting a pointless discussion, the position of most atheists is that:
1) Burden of proof rests on the person making a claim
2) there isn't really any way to prove or disprove the existence of god, (depending on what you mean by 'prove', of course)
3) Given 1 and 2, anybody who believes in god is exhibiting faulty, or at least irrational, thinking.
Unfortunately, as the comment you quoted demonstrates, atheism tends to attract people who like to criticize other's beliefs in ways that are gratuitously inflammatory.
That said, it's not that 'atheists want everybody to agree with them', atheists simply see it as nonsensical or irrational to believe in invisible beings that nobody can see, without any sort of evidence.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
Well, I denounce Joey Rat and the Catholic Church as an affront to human dignity.
To rephrase the parent: "I find your lack of faith disturbing."
It's COMPLETELY different!
The fault was endemic to the system for decades, as priests and bishops came and went. It is not a fluke, it's an organization putting its own well being above that of the vulnerable children under its care. All large organization end up prioritizing their own survival over their stated goals, it's just a fact of life.
The church should take the lumber out of its own eye before pointing out the specks in biotech.
You can't take the sky from me...
the situation for the guy who is in a coma versus a month old ball of cells is completely different as too potential. figure it out
as for your cow. yes, it was brought into this world to be treated as a future hamburger, and is treated as such. but even if she planned on it, she can still expel it. i mean exactly what is your point? if the future-hamburger cow is instead turned into a holy hindu icon, this is wrong, because it is not what was planned? huh? what's your point?
before 3 months, the mother can, without any moral qualms, expel the bag of cells. she has not killed a human life. she has destroyed a biological ball that might one day be a human life. which is not the same as human life. it's simple not the same moral equivalent
do you understand that very simple straightforward observation or not?:
potential to be human life != actual human life
what is difficult about this concept to you exactly?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I think Der Popenfuhrer's fruity hat is an affront to human dignity... but well, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man.
I was just over a year old.
I was a Sophomore in High School when I was confirmed, and it was in line with my desire at that point. Also, Baptism gives grace, and grace always enables the freedom of choice. How many people were baptized as babies and decided to leave?
I guess thats all I have to say.
Here's a picture of my own personal "affront to human dignity". You're an asshole.
http://gallery.doug.dimick.net/d/16816-2/Chloe+017_001.JPG
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
a leading voice in the philosophy and discussion of bioethics
I guess they need to be involved in ethics somehow. They sure haven't been up to the job where pedophilia is concerned. Well, I guess that depends the church's definition of UP and JOB is.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
This pope really is a hippocrite. He probably ought to declare himself an affront to human dignity.
They're using their grammar skills there.
The issue wasn't just "some book" that said the earth was the center of the universe. Almost everybody was convinced that's what they were seeing when they looked up in the sky. It's pretty darn hard to take a glance and figure all that out for yourself. There's a reason it took all of humanity several thousand years to establish that fact. We're talking generations of really hardcore science nerds like Aristotle, Archymedes, and Da Vinci. Almost no one besides Galileo had seen what he had, and few even had the capacity to interpret that as a heliocentric system on their own, even if they did see it. It may seem simple to you or me, who have been taught it in increasingly thorough steps as long as we can remember, but you do disservice to their intellects by neglecting that point.
Galileo (who wasn't the first to suggest or even provide evidence of heliocentrism), happened to be the stubborn fool who got caught in the crosshairs of the debate over a dramatically shifting worldview. If you thought the bickering about whether Pluto is a planet was tiresome, just imagine trying to redefine the entire universe to a largely uneducated world. Heck, plenty of people were still claiming "turtles all the way down" into the 19th or 20th century.
The Church ended up involved largely as a matter of politics, which the Church was unfortunately overly involved in at the time. Galileo actually had a lot of support from the pope at the time until he (apparently accidentally) insulted Pope Urban in his book on the topic. At that point, their friendship ended and the vehemently geocentric half of society was able to sway the board of inquisitors in their favor. Over time the fallacy of geocentrism became increasingly obvious and quietly went away, although the protestants never tired of pointing out the Church's misstep. It only took 359 years for the apology to come out because most people simply saw it as a non-issue that scientific evidence had dealt with. John Paul II, however, wanted to address the lingering resentment. I might also mention that I just happened to read in the paper today that Australia's PM is issuing a formal apology for Australia's mistreatment of Aboriginees. In same tone as yours, do we really want this racist beauracracy clogging down the politics in Australia?
The Catholic Church's teaching on topics like artificial insemmination isn't some arbitrary whim. It's based on a very deeply founded theology of the creation and nature of human beings, and it's one that does not minimize the value of those who are sterile, for example. Obviously few non-Catholics genuinely understand the main points of the theology, but that does not change the reasoning behind it.
I am hardly able to see the Church as a solely medieval institution, as you put it, when it is in fact composed of hundreds of millions of modern day people, most of whom are quite capable of integrating history and the modern world in their lives. While we're at it, humanity is a pre-medieval institution. Where does that leave us?
I denounce his hat as an Affront to 'Human Dignity'.
They want it back.
You can't take the sky from me...
You can't take the sky from me...
You wouldn't say you could rightly kill someone sleeping, in a coma, suspended animation, etc., simply because they had temporarily ceased their conscious thought. You would bring into consideration their potential to resume conscious thinking. So I think it's far from clear that the line of humanity is drawn once consciousness initiates. The fact that it *will* initiate, provided you make no intentionally destructive interventions, seems suspiciously like other cases where we intuitively feel that it is wrong to end life. I'm not saying it is necessarily the same. I feel that it is, quite possibly, impossible to know. But, the thing is, you don't demolish a building until you're sure it's been evacuated, and you don't kill someone or something on a 50/50 hope that it isn't actually murder.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
Are you suggesting that people with severe mental illness or brain damage are not human? What about animals which have more advanced brains than a 6-month-old fetus?
"The issue is not the baby, but the method."
I don't think so. The method is what the church attacks, but it's only to have a tangible handle on the issue. The church's problem, I think, is that the closer science gets to understanding life and how to bring life about, the more it strips away divinity or metaphysics from life and birth. And *that* the church cannot allow - the shrinking of its domain.
Once the sun was a god, because we had no way of understanding what it was. Currently, conception still carries a lot of metaphysics about it. When that goes away, what will remain? The church will think of something, but they'll have to backpedal a lot, so they do what they can to avert it.
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
I guess this could spell problems for my new product, "Pope In A Can".
Have gnu, will travel.
Science is the new religion.
If you don't like the war in Iraq refuse to enlist in the military. Why do some peacnicks types feel they need to imparrt their beliefs on everyone else?
(Answer: Perhaps because if someone's sees an injustice occurring they have a duty to speak out. You may not think it's an injustice but others do: you can speak your mind and they can speak there's. Whatever happened to the idea of free speech?)
Have you ever studied the teachings of the Catholic Church? From the Cathecism:
You will not find a bigger support of Free Will then the Church.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
He says some good common sense, "scientific progress should not be accepted uncritically" and that he "wanted [scientific progress] based on 'ethical-moral principles.'" No problem. Not even controversial. But then we get to the nitty-gritty:
"Meant." See that word? Convert the verb to active voice, and look at the subject.
Aside from that..
That's a fine thing to say, but based on the premise that embryos are people. If you can't find any support for the premise and reject it, then you're left with 'something' being treated as 'something' -- and technology that isn't conflicting with anyone's ethical principles.
This doesn't mean he's wrong, but it does mean he's unpersuasive. Asserting that an ethical principle has been violated, without explaining that it is an ethical principle, says nothing.
But he can't go beyond that, and show that an embryo is a person, because there isn't any information to support that. No one has communicated with an embryo, so we've been left with looking at their rather lumplike behavior, which different people subjectively interpret in different ways. Without information, that leaves..
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I think Catholic Priests running around HIV infested Africa and South America preaching the evil of birth control and contraception is an affront to human dignity.
The way I see it, and this comes not from a religious viewpoint since I am not religious, but entirely a human rights one, is no one else has a right to impose on another person their wishes about their body, including deciding what kind of body that person will have. Every person should have a right to a body that is uniquely theres and no one elses and no one should have a right to force them into someone else's body. At least nature is random and has no agenda. People have agendas and I do not like the idea of people deciding what kind of body a person will have, their facial features, their eye color, etc. People have a right to eb unique and to have things which are uniquely their own and which no one else has control over and the most basic of this is their body. Perhaps people choose their own DNA before they are born, including their phsyical features and characteristics.
Human cloning has a very concerning and unpleasant 1984ish or Brave New World feel to it, a horrific utopian world where every aspect of peoples lives, right down to that which is most personal and sacred to a person, their body, is controlled by others. It is a frightening vision of conformity, uniformity where people are rather than seen as unique individuals instead as carbon copies. It really needs to be completely banned if we care about freedom, the right of each person to be individual, unique, to self determination, the right to a body that is uniquely theres and controlled and manipulated by no one else. We need to respect each person as a unique and diverse person entirely their own, rather than trying to impose ourselves on them and try to determine and control who they are. We need to respect diversity and individuality and eschew totalitarianism and conformism. So I concur with the pope on cloning, not on religious grounds, but on human rights ones.
Pats: 21. Giants: 17.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? (Epicurus)
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
I'm glad there are other people realizing this.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
Incorrect. It's just that all the evidence is circumstantial. People have written that they have spoke to God (i.e. Moses) and other people believe that he is a reliable source. People wrote about how Jesus performed miracles, etc. Therefore it is not entirely like saying "The Flying Spaghetti Monster Appears" just because you can say it.
Although, sadly, saying that people should believe it because it's in a book only give Christianity as much credence as Scientology, just older...
* Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas, declaring the immobility of the sun to be "absurd in philosophy and formally heretical", and the mobility of the Earth "to be at least erroneous in faith";
* He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest for the rest of his life.
* His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future[13]
There is a lot of effort in the religious circles to rewrite that part of their shameful history. I see you're a good sheep. You managed to take their order to shut up as a "celebration" of his theory. Takes a lot of effort to achieve that level of doublethink.
You can't take the sky from me...
In ancient times of the Israelites, if your brother died and left no children to his wife, you were supposed to have sex with her and impregnate her. It would not be considered your baby, but your dead brother's.
Today, if your brother died and he froze his semen, his wife could possibly be artificially inseminated. It would be his baby.
Which is more dignified?
you know :).
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
Sounds like a good headline to me.
I hereby predict on record that every generation will look at previous generation as barbaric and stupid because of the way they treat each other. At least that is what I hope will happen. So far we seem to be on the right track. In the last three generations of my american family non-landowners, women, and those of color were not in their same category of 'human dignity'.
With any luck, our children will think we are intolerant buffoons.
It'd be cool if it did exist though! Imagine the stories that'd be written!
Let us not forget Bertrand Russell's teapot.
[FUCK BETA]
The Pope is on another hypocritical rant. For a this sect of Christianity is the worst of the all. First it was the Inquisition which stopped the European open thinking. Second the paying of bribes and other evils that Martin Luther alluded to 95 Theses (Martin Luther was no saint either but that is all relative). Third is the current sex scandal with alter boys. There are many more but I don't have time.
I'm a Protestant Christian so I have my bias but have studied this from in college understand that people are the hypocrites that takes the religion way out of context. Similar to Osama Bin Laden with his "Fundamentalists" Islam which has no bearing with Islam or the Quran. I don't want to use the Pope in relation to Osama but if Pope goes over the deep end again like the Inquisition then there will be no difference.
Here are two links which take different take on the issue but arrive at a similar conclusion. The first link says that Galileo was only condemnded after attacking philosophy.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/A_003_Galileo.html
The next link shows that it was professors at University that pushed for the Inquisition and that the Church initially supported him
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/08/16/galileo-redux/
Does that mean "I got an aching for head"???
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
It's not like Protestantism has been a fountain of tranquility and human rights. Catholics were abused for long stretches of time in Protestant countries. It was Protestants in the American South that went out and formed the Southern Baptist Convention so they could have a church to justify slavery. It is Protestantism which is the foundation of a number of whacky Evangelical/Fundemntalist groups who want to turn the US into a theocracy.
You know what they say about those in glass houses throwing stones...
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Hitler was a good man (Pope when he was younger)
....and see if the clone has a soul! :)
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
Yes they were intertwined but only in so much as the state had a "recognized" religion.
More than that.
Some of the symbolism within the coronation ceremony for British monarchs, in which they are anointed with Holy oils by the Archbishop of Canterbury, thereby ordaining them to monarchy, perpetuates the ancient Roman Catholic monarchical ideas and ceremonial (although few Protestants realise this, the ceremony is entirely based upon that of the Coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor).
Kings were put in place by the church. That's a little more than an endorsement.
Bruno was put to death for heresy - hardly a secular crime. He was arrested by the Venetian Inquisition - a church organization - in 1592. Then on the Roman Inquisition ordered his transfer, where he was transfered to Rome. He was held there seven years in the Tower of Nona, which is "a pontifical prison".
Then, "His trial was overseen by the inquisitor Cardinal Bellarmine, who demanded a full recantation, which Bruno eventually refused. Instead he appealed in vain to Pope Clement VIII, hoping to save his life through a partial recantation. The Pope expressed himself in favor of a guilty verdict."
Your point seems to be the next line, "Consequently, Bruno was declared a heretic, handed over to secular authorities on February 8 1600."
My point is that while the pope may not have personally brought the torch to the fire, the church most definitely ordered him put to death. They may not have done the actual physical deed - but they put him to death. Saying that the church didn't put him to death is disingenuous, like saying Al Capone never put anyone to death because he wasn't a trigger man.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
"Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principles that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument."
The alternative you suggest is morality by arbitrary fiat, rather than using utilitarianism to navigate through inherent ambiguity.
I understand your conflict-of-interest angle, but there is a very good fucking reason why, in this case, we should use the method of science: we should *always* use it, not 'even when' but 'especially when' dealing with the discipline we call "science".
What about a guy who has Ph.Ds in both astro-physics and theology? Is he qualified to speak about this? Or the guy who thought of the Big Bang? An atomic physicist that inspired Faraday? Or the people who published some of these papers?
You can try claiming many things about the Pope, but to say he's talking out of ignorance is probably not something that will hold up under scrutiny. Some of the greatest minds have been part of the Church and have striven to find the truth--both morally and scientifically.
To me, open-mindedness means these things:
It does not mean this:
I have never heard an argument or seen evidence for a given religion which makes me think it's anything more than a massive delusion, at best.
This does not mean I'm unwilling to listen. I love discussing religion and philosophy. Just don't expect to convince me with something as pathetic as "The Pope said so, and he's always right!"
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
At first I wanted to just post "the _pope_ is an affront to human dignity", but then I used the post above to do some simple calculations. I just took the 359 years figure for the Galileo apology, and subtracted it from present -1. I've decided that I will consider all the pope's comments relevant and meaningful, including his views on human dignity affronting, for the date - 358 years. So, for all events in 1650, I will view through the perspective that test-tube babies and human cloning are an undignified endeavor for humans. Any test tube babies or human clones in the year 1650 are abominations and must be burnt! After that date, it will become dignified. Thank you for your input, Pope! 1651 looks to be a great year for biotechnology!
See, I could listen to your theological speculations on the issue, or I could listen to those of a professional theologian like the Pope. While theology doesn't accomplish much either way and neither of you are saying anything meaningful, at least the Pope is more convincing at pretending to be an authority on the matter.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
This pope was not just a Nazi while his neighbors were fleeing to the hills rather than be Nazis.
He was also the head of the current office of the Inquisition for 25 years. In which he denounced homosexuality as an affront to human dignity. And in which he hid homosexual child rapist priests.
This hypocritical old man has nothing to teach us about "human dignity". Even when he's right he's wrong.
--
make install -not war
What if the AI has living components? What if you lost half of your body(including the brain, kidneys, endocrine organs, and such) and that technology could completely replace and simulate the lost half, would you have half a soul? Would you be half dead? And what happens when you replace more and more cells with technology? Would you have a soul if you had 1 real brain cell and the rest were simulated? Now let me complicate things further, what happens if you make an exact copy of yourself having the exact same neural wiring pattern and everything(through entirely ethical means of course)? Would the 2 of you have 1 soul or 2? What happens if two different people attach their brains together, again, do they have 1 soul or 2?
"Not every ejaculation deserves a name"
The zygote divides because God injected a second soul.
Sheesh.
Infuriate left and right
You're right, anyone who doesn't agree with you should be modded into the ground. /sarcasm
You can't be flamebait if you're making a good point. Don't most atheists, at least on Slashdot, say religious folk aren't open minded? (Answer: yes) Just because you don't fit the generalization doesn't mean its not true.
So Hitler and the Nazis did not kill Jews, nor did Stalin and his communists kill peasants, not did Mao and his communist system kill anybody. No, it was all those damned secularists!
Damn you Secularism! Damn you to Hell and back! Stop killing so many people!
Infuriate left and right
Who is man to tell God what He ought and ought not do?
I guess thats all I have to say.
What biological occurrence is it at the end of the first trimester that causes you to ascribe humanity to the fetus (already termed as such at 8 weeks) at that time?
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
But I didn't see this in TFA:
'Church teaching certainly cannot and must not weigh in on every novelty of science, but it has the task to reiterate the great values which are on the line and to propose to faithful and all men of good will ethical-moral principles and direction for new, important questions,' Benedict said."
So where did this come from?
qz
If "killing" a single-celled organism is wrong, what about fruit flies? They have far more brain cells than a blastocyst. Wouldn't their suffering exceed that of an aborted fetus?
Then, when the Pope dodges all questions related to pursuit of happiness, and relief of real suffering, with his "human soul" escape clause, ask him about the cruelty of cramming a complete human soul into a structure with less consciousness than a fruit fly. Either first trimester abortions and stem cell research are just fine, or God is an abuser. There is no 'out' left to the Catholic Church on these questions. It is either for human life, liberty, and happiness and scientific research in pursuit of all three, or against all forms of human freedom. Unless, they're all just too damned stupid to take seriously, ever, on anything.
All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..
Given that the pope is not an expert on either biology nor ethics, how about he simply shuts up about stuff he doesn't know about?
(he studied theology, with a focus on Fundamentalist Theology, if you really want to know what his "ethics" are. His first stint as a professor (at a catholic "university") was in the subjects of Theology and Dogmatics.)
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/A_003_Galileo.html
The next link shows that it was professors at University that pushed for the Inquisition and that the Church initially supported him
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/08/16/galileo-redux/ "Tradition In Action is committed to defend the perennial Magisterium of Holy Mother Church and Catholic traditions. TIA also works for a restoration of Christian civilization, adapted to contemporary historical circumstances. "
Oh yeah, no agenda here, I'll just swallow what they have to say.
Those mean professors bullied the demure Inquisition into sentencing him to prison! Poor, powerless Inquisition, at the mercy of every university professor out there...
You can't take the sky from me...
If total depravity due to original sin were an issue in the New Testament, I would expect it to say something about infant baptism and not tie baptism to actions of knowledge such as repentence, faith, and confession. (You probably should have quoted the fifth chapter of Paul's epistle to the Romans, as well.)
I really do recommend reading the anti-Nicene fathers on this issue. It's very interesting to compare them to the post-Nicene fathers especially on the issue of Mary and virginity. In particular, only post-Augustine does the question arise as to the circumstances of her conception.
how to invest, a novice's guide
I mean seriously, while the Catholic church has the biggest following of any religion I know of (and the includes baptists, which while not a religion as opposed to a fanatic cult) I haven't seen the Church provide any guidance to anyone as of late... especially since the passing of JPII. I tend to find that if nothing else, the Church seems to put more effort into being heard than listened to.
In the modern world where religion has less and less impact on the operation of governments, corporations and educational institutions. During a time when people regularly openly mock Christians in general as being brain dead (if you haven't noticed it, you're not listening). In an era where people are actually turned down for jobs because they wear a cross around their neck, the Churches will need to now, more than ever show they're evolving with the times. More and more, their followers are the sheep of society, not the leaders.
If the Church genuinely wants to make a difference, they need to, instead of playing the "Moral grounds card", since most people working on the projects do see themselves on higher moral grounds than the Church, provide research to show it's not a good idea. Hire independant (non-religion, possibly atheist) scientists to research the topic as well and present good reasoning that would specifically back up their arguments.
If we go back, long before the Catholic church to the days of exodus, Kosher was presented to a weak people dieing from tape worm, food poisening and other such issues an uneducated population travelling in the desert would be forced to survive. The morals behind Kosher had deeper meaning than "You should not cook thine cattle in the milk of its mother". The problem was that Egyptians classically would baste their meat in milk overnight to cause it to be much more tender. The moral was in reality that deadly tiny little bacteria would form in the meat when it's left on a rock in the desert overnight.
If the Church genuinely feels they have out best interest in mind, remember, we're not a bunch of uneducated brick makers with families travelling in a desert. Do the research to tell us what in fact is morally wrong. Show us the actual answer, we are reasonable and rational people. If you can show that a certain form of scientific progress will has a very highly likelyhood of having a morally negative impact on humankind, we will listen... at least we'll alter our research to avoid the complication.
I hereby declare all religions to be dumb superstitions and ban them from being believed and practiced by all self-respecting human beings.
After all, I have better knowledge and credibility in the areas of philosophy, psychology and history than Pope has in science.
Seriously, can we get rid of this mental virus already? We managed to destroy smallpox! The freaking smallpox! Yet minds of people remain infested with religions, even though just keeping people from contracting it until the late teenage years (when they switch from "learn from authority figures" to "apply your own critical thinking" mode) reliably cuts off its propagation to all future generations. Geez!
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
One can make a viable clone from a non-embryonic stem cell. Do clones have a soul ? Do they have a soul when they are a bunch of stem cells ? When they are a single stem-cell ? How can it be ok to use non-embryonic cell and not kosher to use embryonic ones ?
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
The Pope himself is an affront to human dignity, so he should feel right at home with biotech then.
It is a large organization, but not one based on slavery (like the Borg) but one based on a personal choice. I personally thing that chanting psalms in community is awesome.
Actually, the analogy is quite apt: initially, adults resist assimilation, while kids are just born into the collective. But once assimulated, the community of the collective, the closeness of other minds, is something they value greatly. And then the drones go out and assimilate more pepole into the collective.
The Borg is an excellent metaphor for organizations like the Catholic church. And that's not an accident: after all, the Star Trek writers are not stupid, and they are using Star Trek to show us things about our own society.
In fact if we inspect the properties of this Christian god, could probably come up with a rigid proof that either it doesn't exist, or that our minds cannot logically comprehend its existence.
But then even if such a proof existed people will keep believing anyways. Such is called Faith.
Don't quote me on this.
He should be delighted that his old mate Josef Mengele's work is being carried on, not moaning about 'morals'...
What do Catholics know about morals?? Do what you want as long as you say sorry isn't very moralistic approach in my view
If the sin is passed down at the point of conception (and not caused or created BY the conception) then what if a married pair of catholics have sex (without any sinful thought or actions-AFAIK sex between a married couple is not a sin) just after confession (which AFAIK cleans ALL (confessed), even original, sin in catholic doctrine) then wouldn't the child thus conceived be free of sin?
So, Pope Ratz thinks the whole point of everything is dignity? Ask any soldier who's been in combat about dignity, then ask the Pope about the Crusades. Oh and "The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith"? Yeah. Nice try on the re-branding. But we know its former name was The Office of the Holy Inquisition. Not surprising that the oldest surviving curia is the one that tortures people until they admit to lies. FUCK the Catholics and FUCK their dignity. Give me science that will extend our lives so that we don't have to scurry, trod on each other and stab each other in the back to accomplish our goals before we die. Joe Ratzinger... no friend of the human race.
denounce the pope as an affront to Human morality .
As an atheist i find his pronuncements on the world irrelevant and out of touch.
He cant talk about morality untill he does something to prevent the rampant child
abuse in the catholic church instead of encouraging people to bury it as he advised
earlier on in his career. Thousands have suffered inhuman treatment because of that.
Don't get me started on his pronouncements against contraception in
Africa that have been the biggest catalyst to the explosion of AIDS cases.
Future generations will see that as the biggest genocide of our age.
Oh well there goes my karma but it needed to be said.
Toodle-pip
Amias
[site]
To those who believe the comment "a) The Catholic Church has not hidden pedophiles. SOME PRIESTS AND BISHOPS have. By your standards, the United States should disappear from the face of the earth since they has decades abusing human rights. Right? RIGHT?"
... "It imposes an oath of secrecy on the child victim, the priest dealing with the allegation and any witnesses.
..... yeah , right .
the following link from the BBC should be of great interest
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5389684.stm
High level summary :
the Clergy , right up to the top has and does hide pedophile priests.
It gets worse though , Cardinal Ratzinger , the current pope , wrote the "Crimen Sollicitationis"
it disgusts me that this is STILL the official Church process for dealing with accusations of pedophelia against priests .
Breaking that oath means excommunication from the Catholic Church. "
Posted as an Irish Catholic
"The Church is the guardian of the faith"
"the church is the guardian of the church"
Having said all that it is my strong opinion that the number of good , compassionate priests , by FAR , outweighs the bad.
In the words of Bishop Don Magic Juan himself,
Chuuch.
The Catholic church really needs to get it's own house in
order before attempting to preach to the rest of us about
"human dignity". Accept responsibility for harboring
pedophiles and pushing those who were doing the harboring
and you might have some standing to talk about "human dignity".
The Papacy has been abdicating it's moral high ground since at least 1939.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Oh wait, there aren't any
You do realize the purpose of medical/scientific research is to eventually have treatments or medical processes that actually benefit patients and all humans in general, right? That is the long-term goal of all medical research. There are no therapies derived from embryonic stem cell research YET, but the field is in its infancy. Who knows what knowledge will be discovered in 20 years?
The point I was trying to illustrate is that if the Pope firmly believes that a clump of cells is a human life, then he, and all Catholics that believe that nonsense should refuse all treatments derived from knowledge acquired using embryonic stem cell experiments. It's called not being a hypocrite.
Adult stem cells may or may not work in specific medical studies or applications. That is an unknown at this point. It is possible that some therapies will only come from embryonic stem cells. Would you be willing to sacrifice your life, (or a family member's / loved one's life) by refusing treatments based on embryonic stem cell research for the opinions of the Catholic Church?
I know I wouldn't. Not for the Catholic Church, or any other.
-ted
If your act of *natural* insemination qualifies as "dignified" you're probably doing something wrong.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Well, to all of you who are pro-cloning, let's clone your asses, get rid of you...no harm done, it's still gonna be you! The funny thing about this is that unless it happens to you, you're full of knowledge and answers, but when it comes knocking on your door, you crawl into a corner and squirm....
Flamebait would've been me posting my opinion of the deity, which is very much in line with that of Dawkins and Hitchens.
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
I hear he'll soon be denouncing bizznatches as well.
"I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different.
I chose the impossible. I chose...Rapture,
a city where the artist would not fear the censor,
where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality,
Where the great would not be constrained by the small!"
-Andrew Ryan
Baptism of children is drawn from the Bible. A debate for a different forum. http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp
Nope, "1+1=2" is a metaperception. We have a perception of how our temporal and occipital-parietal complex relates to objects in our context that we express as "1 plus 1 always adds up to 2". It is not an example of faith, it is a metaperception that we all have in common. A few of us lack this perception but they are not likely to pass on their genes.
Since religion is a strong socializing force in much of the world today, most people who lack the God delusion are also not likely to pass on their genes, or have access to the other benefits of in-group membership.
Planet US of A?
In Mexico I just stopped going to church and well, that was pretty much it. It is not uncommon in Mexican families that only one or two members follow the rites while all the others thoroughly ignore religion.
The Catholic Church did not put itself as the source of Christian authority. If you believe in all that stuff it was Jesus himself (i.e. God) and there is a traceable historic lineage from the current Pope back to Saint Peter. Other denominations may not like it but it is unquestionable from an historic point of view.
The fact is that protestant sects of Christianity after Luther separated from the Catholic Church, which is and will always be the direct representative of God on Earth. Please note that Jesus did not say that his representatives were going to be holly, wise or apt. At least Orthodox churches can claim that they smelled fish much earlier.
But frankly rational people should look at the above with a sigh of relief and wondering when we all will look at it as we do look now at many other superstitions that arose when we did not know any better.....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And the Catholic Church and Protestant Christian sects have made no scientific effort to support their assertions about the humanity of a few cells after conception and upwards.
They just throw diatribe about moral judgments about a subject in which there is clearly no agreement about its morality or lack thereof, in which case they should not be the absolutist pricks that they are and leave it to the conscience of each individual while supporting the moral choices those individuals have to make.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Men of reason can only continue these discussions with mild amusement, and if they are ill predisposed, with hostile derision.
Religious people ask so many ifs and buts to muzzle rational thinking that the only appropriate reactions are no longer necessarily polite.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Well, atleast your sig is accurate. :)
Of course all research has some inherent risks to those involved as well as all of humanity. The question is whether those risks outweigh the benifits.
And, as the rest of my above comment already states, I support all stem cell research. I believe that to be human is based in the human mind, something that a clump of undeveloped cells cannot possibly have.
Finally, playing the devils advocate back to you. If the greater good is all that is really important to you, why aren't you volounteering for medical experiments. After all, your sacrifice could save the lives of countless others.
Malware authours and iPhone hackers don't think memory leaks are a bad thing. Oh, and 1+1=3 for large values of 1.