|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 9:46 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:16 pm
 |
|
|
 |
real eyes realize Ungodly indeed. Sometimes I wonder if YHWH hadn't confused the languages, we probably would've done this sooner through our collective efforts. Hitler tried to do the same thing: blonde hair, blue-eyed, perfect Aryan race. Some human beings just want to play God: create life, the way they want it, by their own rules. This can't possibly have a positive outcome when all the way in Leviticus, God warned against it: Leviticus 19:19 (NIV)
19 “‘Keep my decrees.
“‘Do not mate different kinds of animals.
“‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
“‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
Yeah, while in now-a-days we buy our cloths and no longer make them, we can still avoid the mix clothings, i am sure God will forgive us nonetheless. But to purposely go and create a creature that is not supposed to exist. I cant help but see these creatures as abominations. I know we are to show them the same love, but i cant help but just see them, the humans created from this from two males or two females as less human, as a unholy thing. I dont see it as much as with a human born without a womb, but i dont see them higher then the other abominations.. I really dont know why aside his love for us, why God hasnt just cleared us out long ago. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:22 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:21 am
|
|
|
|
The basics of being a human is genetic, since we have a specific set of chromosomes that help to make us who we are. In terms of artificially creating humans, it's really just a matter of combining the DNA appropriately to create something. The only significant difference between males and females, on the genetic level, is the sex chromosome. Males have a Y, females have two X. Having two 'Y' chromosomes probably isn't going to work out very well... in fact, as I understand it, YY generally leads to a miscarriage because the X chromosome is important for fetal development. It is, however, what makes a man into a man. On the genetic level, every man is basically half woman (that's the X chromosome, as in XY), and genetically mixing two X chromosomes to create a new life (which is what will happen if you genetically combine two women) is, practically speaking, really no different from random chance creating a girl.
As for creating a child from two men, genetically, they'd want to go XY. Which is taking the female part of genes and combining it with the male part. Or, y'know, they could take X from both of them and make a girl, too.
It may seem like an unholy abomination, but when you actually examine what happens, it's pretty normal on the genetic level. It's just humans taking more control of the process and making their own selections... and I cannot possibly condone calling the results of such efforts abominations. neutral It's okay to have concerns about using science to manipulate life, but to treat people like they're monsters just for the way they were born? That's very much against the love that the Bible teaches us to show. Artificially-created children are still people, and deserve to be treated with every bit of the respect and dignity that everyone else is offered. If you're not willing to love others regardless of whatever problems they might have (ESPECIALLY when those problems are utterly outside of control), you may wish to spend a little more time considering your faith and the actual teachings of the Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:14 am
|
|
|
|
Some interesting ideas that come to mind the further I linger on the subject:
- about the offspring made from two men, and those made outside the womb, would they have belly buttons? question That may sound silly, but would there be an umbilical chord at all? An interesting thing to think about at least, lol. If they do have an umbilical chord, and thus a belly button, the offspring made from two men or out of a womb, would probably look totally normal, so it would be difficult to discriminate against them in the first place (unless they go around telling everybody?). Adam and Eve didn't have bellybuttons, so I'm not saying that's a reason to discriminate; just wondering if there would be any physical indication of the process that formed them?
- I can't imagine people treating them any different, even if there was a physical indication of what formed them—especially with the public accepting homosexuality nowadays and increasing in acceptance (though there will always exist people, from both the religious and non-religious side, treating people hatefully for being sinful or different; at least at first, then people kind of get use to it). I may not agree with the process that spawned them, but our treatment of them shouldn't be any different than any other human being: merciful, compassionate, not-hateful, or condescending. Recognizing that they're abominations, or that the process that formed them is abominable to God, I don't think falls under "hateful treatment" though. Going against the way YHWH wanted it is idolatrous in nature (following something else instead of God and his ways), and idolatry is one of the things deemed as an "abomination" to God.
- on a different note: they might be the same on a biological level, but what about the soul level? What if they are psychopaths with no conscience? that's the same question I have towards animal hybrids: will they have a conscience? The only example we have in scripture of a sentient being spawning from the mixing of two different seeds are the Bene Elohim with the daughters of man in Genesis chapter 6. When they came together with the daughters of man, their offspring and the population on the earth (minus Noah) only had evil in their hearts, they grew increasingly violent and corrupt after that incident. Whether they were born with a conscience or not, or whether their conscience just got seared shut through desensitization of evil I'm not sure. But again, another interesting thing to think about.
- The ones who are going to be facing the most hate, I think, are the animal hybrids. How do you interact with a half human/half animal? You can't tie them up to a plow; that would be "inhumane". Animal rights to another level. I think this would be the highest incentive to ban all meats (even the ones God said were clean to eat), force everyone to be vegan (however, when they're mixing fish DNA into a tomato, you've got to question, is that vegetable purely a vegetable? [»]) and ban marriage of straight couples altogether because they'll be creating humans another way.
1 Timothy 4, anyone?
Quote: 1 Timothy 4:1-4 (NIV) 4 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
No consciences. Forbidding what the bible deems marriage (man and a woman). Forbidding what the bible consecrates/sets-apart as food for human consumption.
And about the food: not only can it be a possible hint towards the "veganism movement" I see going on lately, but also hinting towards people who forbid Christians from eating halal (food prepared by Muslims, which don't violate torah, yet banned because the food is dedicated to Allah when preparing it). If you pray over something that was dedicated to another god, you can still eat it. Muslims eat clean meats too. But not just Muslims, food prepared from other religious groups who may have dedicated the food to another deity. If it's consecrated by the Word of God as food and you pray over it, thanking Our Heavenly Father for it, it's fine to eat.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:03 am
|
|
|
|
You know what else is an abomination in the eyes of God? Sin. Why, you could even go so far as to say that anyone who's ever sinned has become an abomination, and that abominations are lucky because God's willing to forgive such issues!
Oh, wait... isn't that the core doctrine of the faith? =D Imagine that!
Perhaps the best thing to do would be to settle on the idea that whether or not artificially-created children are abominations, even in the eyes of God, we should remember the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant, Matthew 18:21-35...
(NIV version, here)
Quote: 21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?" 22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times. 23 “Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold was brought to him. 25 Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt. 26 “At this the servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ 27 The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go. 28 “But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred silver coins. He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded. 29 “His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it back.’ 30 “But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31 When the other servants saw what had happened, they were outraged and went and told their master everything that had happened. 32 “Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33 Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. 35 “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:38 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:47 am
|
|
|
|
@Rednal:
Well, yeah, especially after they've recognized it was wrong, the forgiving attitude from our part would manifest by treating them well, and by refraining from making snide remarks about the method which brought them into the world. Though that parable you used is implying you're treating them favorably even though they don't deserve it; I don't know if that's what you were going for, but I get what you mean. Just because we overlook how they were born and treat them well, however, doesn't mean the actual process that created them would cease being an abomination. Just that the person isn't treated any less after coming into existence.
For example, people who divorce for reasons other than sexual immorality and then remarry another, commit adultery (Matthew 5:32) since it wasn't a legitimate reason to divorce in the eyes of God, so technically they're still married, yet becoming sexually intimate with another; they won't be considered adulterers forever / permanently stained for doing so. The act in the moment was wrong, and they need to recognize that, but no one should treat them horribly for remarrying, or continue recalling their past wrong after they repented/recognized that it was wrong. Now that they're in covenant with another person, they should be faithful to their new spouse. But that's not approving of divorce for reasons other than sexual immorality nor approving people to go marry illegitimate-divorcees; and thus, even though we don't continue to recall that certain couples' sinful start, we shouldn't encourage people to pursue divorce for reasons other than sexual immorality or encourage them to marry a divorcee who divorced for illegitimate reasons (illegitimate from biblical standards).
Same with individuals who would be birthed via these methods: how they come about is wrong, but people shouldn't treat them coldly and ruthlessly. Do we encourage people to use these methods, or deem those methods morally correct, just because we treat their offspring kindly? no. The process is still sinful / not in accord with God's law. They would come into this world as an abomination, but we don't treat them differently (especially when they recognize what was sinful about it and want to be shown mercy/seek forgiveness from God and shown mercy from fellow believers).
For the ones who would be hybrids, the fact that they would be part human means they could possibly read and understand the gospel; God could develop a conscience in them if they didn't have one. But this does present a problem, going back to sexual immorality: if they're half animal, what does that do with bestiality laws? confused Would God want them to reproduce? "Half human/half something else" wasn't suppose to happen, so no. If religious voters want the reproduction rights of hybrids taken away, then so could everyone elses', and then back to babies born out of the womb, the only "fair" way to maintain the population when you have a demographic who is half one species / half another species. Maybe this is what people are trying to achieve? Why else would they cross humans with animals, fully knowing some groups would totally be against it? and possibly try to take away their reproductive rights? Hmmm...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:06 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 7:59 pm
|
|
|
|
Scientists have been exploring the modification of genes for a looking time--like in vegetables and fruit, domestic animals like dogs and cats, and cattle. Breeders and scientists modify the genes of living things to get certain results, usually through generations.
I also love that someone brought up Hitler's beloved perfect race, which is ironic because blonde hair and blue eyes are genetic and troublesome mutations--accidents. The loss of pigmentation is bad for hair and eyes because it makes them more susceptible to damage, unlike with brown hair and brown eyes. Ironic still is that blonde hair and blue eyes are considered sought after traits by a good many persons. Darn genetics.
But here's something even more ironic OP: you say you hate science, but without science you wouldn't be able to come on this site and complain about how much you hate it, nor would you probably have ever known about what scientists are trying to do with science.
As for me--I love science. It has done many wonderful things, and I find science about genetics very interesting. Genetic science isn't all bad, and has certainly uncovered many genetic mysteries over the years... like disorders, cancers, why is it we seem to be so much like our parents in one way or the other despite our best efforts. That stuff gets passed down to us through genes, and I think if scientists hadn't discovered those things, we would still be in a lot of ignorance. We wouldn't be able to help those that are suffering of cancer before it was too late if it wasn't for our ability to look at someone's genes and determine how likely it is that someone may get cancer because of their parents, so on and so forth.
I know my opinion isn't a religious one; I'm not a Christian nor do I believe in the god of the bible. At the same time, I think it's fair to say that if it weren't for science today, I honestly think the world would still be living by medieval morals and ways of thinking. It's bad enough that there are still too many people who don't learn from mankind's history.
One of my favorite quotes goes something like this: a man isn't entirely guilty; he didn't create history. But he isn't entirely innocent; he continues to repeat it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:33 pm
|
|
|
|
s o a p n u t Scientists have been exploring the modification of genes for a looking time--like in vegetables and fruit, domestic animals like dogs and cats, and cattle. Breeders and scientists modify the genes of living things to get certain results, usually through generations. I also love that someone brought up Hitler's beloved perfect race, which is ironic because blonde hair and blue eyes are genetic and troublesome mutations--accidents. The loss of pigmentation is bad for hair and eyes because it makes them more susceptible to damage, unlike with brown hair and brown eyes. Ironic still is that blonde hair and blue eyes are considered sought after traits by a good many persons. Darn genetics. But here's something even more ironic OP: you say you hate science, but without science you wouldn't be able to come on this site and complain about how much you hate it, nor would you probably have ever known about what scientists are trying to do with science. As for me--I love science. It has done many wonderful things, and I find science about genetics very interesting. Genetic science isn't all bad, and has certainly uncovered many genetic mysteries over the years... like disorders, cancers, why is it we seem to be so much like our parents in one way or the other despite our best efforts. That stuff gets passed down to us through genes, and I think if scientists hadn't discovered those things, we would still be in a lot of ignorance. We wouldn't be able to help those that are suffering of cancer before it was too late if it wasn't for our ability to look at someone's genes and determine how likely it is that someone may get cancer because of their parents, so on and so forth. I know my opinion isn't a religious one; I'm not a Christian nor do I believe in the god of the bible. At the same time, I think it's fair to say that if it weren't for science today, I honestly think the world would still be living by medieval morals and ways of thinking. It's bad enough that there are still too many people who don't learn from mankind's history. One of my favorite quotes goes something like this: a man isn't entirely guilty; he didn't create history. But he isn't entirely innocent; he continues to repeat it.
whats ironic is your in a christian guild, yet you dont believe in God or are a christian. But what i hate about science, When they decide to create things that are pointless. Question, how will a cat that glows in the dark, a lion/dog hybrid, or spider/plant hybrid help humanity in anyway? How will allowing two men to have a child help anyone? There is a reason we as humans can create life with a man and a woman. You cant expect to pieces of the same type to work together and make something. Thats like getting two lamp plugs and pushing them together and expecting the lights to work. I like science to a point, i dislike it when they do things that are unneeded and pointless. To me. it is better to analyze a step before jumping blindly into something. People are giving up God for science. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:47 pm
|
|
|
|
911child s o a p n u t Scientists have been exploring the modification of genes for a looking time--like in vegetables and fruit, domestic animals like dogs and cats, and cattle. Breeders and scientists modify the genes of living things to get certain results, usually through generations. I also love that someone brought up Hitler's beloved perfect race, which is ironic because blonde hair and blue eyes are genetic and troublesome mutations--accidents. The loss of pigmentation is bad for hair and eyes because it makes them more susceptible to damage, unlike with brown hair and brown eyes. Ironic still is that blonde hair and blue eyes are considered sought after traits by a good many persons. Darn genetics. But here's something even more ironic OP: you say you hate science, but without science you wouldn't be able to come on this site and complain about how much you hate it, nor would you probably have ever known about what scientists are trying to do with science. As for me--I love science. It has done many wonderful things, and I find science about genetics very interesting. Genetic science isn't all bad, and has certainly uncovered many genetic mysteries over the years... like disorders, cancers, why is it we seem to be so much like our parents in one way or the other despite our best efforts. That stuff gets passed down to us through genes, and I think if scientists hadn't discovered those things, we would still be in a lot of ignorance. We wouldn't be able to help those that are suffering of cancer before it was too late if it wasn't for our ability to look at someone's genes and determine how likely it is that someone may get cancer because of their parents, so on and so forth. I know my opinion isn't a religious one; I'm not a Christian nor do I believe in the god of the bible. At the same time, I think it's fair to say that if it weren't for science today, I honestly think the world would still be living by medieval morals and ways of thinking. It's bad enough that there are still too many people who don't learn from mankind's history. One of my favorite quotes goes something like this: a man isn't entirely guilty; he didn't create history. But he isn't entirely innocent; he continues to repeat it. whats ironic is your in a christian guild, yet you dont believe in God or are a christian. But what i hate about science, When they decide to create things that are pointless. Question, how will a cat that glows in the dark, a lion/dog hybrid, or spider/plant hybrid help humanity in anyway? How will allowing two men to have a child help anyone? There is a reason we as humans can create life with a man and a woman. You cant expect to pieces of the same type to work together and make something. Thats like getting two lamp plugs and pushing them together and expecting the lights to work. I like science to a point, i dislike it when they do things that are unneeded and pointless. To me. it is better to analyze a step before jumping blindly into something. People are giving up God for science.
Well, this is a public guild, and I'm sure you have had more than one unbeliever among your midst in the past, yes? It's not very ironic, either--this guild has a lot of discussion, and from my understanding, whether I'm a Christian or not, it's my prerogative to have a discussion in a discussion forum, whether I agree or disagree with the topic or OP's opinion, as long as I do so in a civilized manner. What brought me here was a friend who saw this discussion, showed it to me, and as a result, I took some interest in replying. But I'm getting the vibe that you don't like me being here-are unbelievers not welcome, especially when they disagree with certain topics? Maybe the crew should make the guild a private one, then.
Anyway... hybrid lion dogs and plant spiders don't actually exist, you know that, right? I'm familiar with those photos and with the fact that those photos are nothing but a giant hoax. The person who put them up as "proof" was a troll because they knew there were people on the internet who would actually think they were real. That lion dog, though, is technically real... as in it's just a super fluffy dog that got shaved in such a way to look like a lion. And glowing cats are real in a sense that some cats have been bred to have certain color of skin that would glow under a black light; the purpose was so that cats could be found more easily in the dark, like in situations where they run away and are hiding in a bush and such. It wasn't some arbitrary decision.
The actual truth about science, though, is this: it allows people to explore why things are the way they are, which is good because that passion for exploration has birthed amazing and pretty neat discoveries. It's just too bad that some people have crossed the line between right and wrong, have done some terrible things--there's always going to be people like that, anywhere.
But do I think that science should oblige the moral boundaries of any religion? No. I don't think we would have such an abundance of knowledge if that was mandatory. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:36 am
|
|
|
|
s o a p n u t 911child s o a p n u t Scientists have been exploring the modification of genes for a looking time--like in vegetables and fruit, domestic animals like dogs and cats, and cattle. Breeders and scientists modify the genes of living things to get certain results, usually through generations. I also love that someone brought up Hitler's beloved perfect race, which is ironic because blonde hair and blue eyes are genetic and troublesome mutations--accidents. The loss of pigmentation is bad for hair and eyes because it makes them more susceptible to damage, unlike with brown hair and brown eyes. Ironic still is that blonde hair and blue eyes are considered sought after traits by a good many persons. Darn genetics. But here's something even more ironic OP: you say you hate science, but without science you wouldn't be able to come on this site and complain about how much you hate it, nor would you probably have ever known about what scientists are trying to do with science. As for me--I love science. It has done many wonderful things, and I find science about genetics very interesting. Genetic science isn't all bad, and has certainly uncovered many genetic mysteries over the years... like disorders, cancers, why is it we seem to be so much like our parents in one way or the other despite our best efforts. That stuff gets passed down to us through genes, and I think if scientists hadn't discovered those things, we would still be in a lot of ignorance. We wouldn't be able to help those that are suffering of cancer before it was too late if it wasn't for our ability to look at someone's genes and determine how likely it is that someone may get cancer because of their parents, so on and so forth. I know my opinion isn't a religious one; I'm not a Christian nor do I believe in the god of the bible. At the same time, I think it's fair to say that if it weren't for science today, I honestly think the world would still be living by medieval morals and ways of thinking. It's bad enough that there are still too many people who don't learn from mankind's history. One of my favorite quotes goes something like this: a man isn't entirely guilty; he didn't create history. But he isn't entirely innocent; he continues to repeat it. whats ironic is your in a christian guild, yet you dont believe in God or are a christian. But what i hate about science, When they decide to create things that are pointless. Question, how will a cat that glows in the dark, a lion/dog hybrid, or spider/plant hybrid help humanity in anyway? How will allowing two men to have a child help anyone? There is a reason we as humans can create life with a man and a woman. You cant expect to pieces of the same type to work together and make something. Thats like getting two lamp plugs and pushing them together and expecting the lights to work. I like science to a point, i dislike it when they do things that are unneeded and pointless. To me. it is better to analyze a step before jumping blindly into something. People are giving up God for science. Well, this is a public guild, and I'm sure you have had more than one unbeliever among your midst in the past, yes? It's not very ironic, either--this guild has a lot of discussion, and from my understanding, whether I'm a Christian or not, it's my prerogative to have a discussion in a discussion forum, whether I agree or disagree with the topic or OP's opinion, as long as I do so in a civilized manner. What brought me here was a friend who saw this discussion, showed it to me, and as a result, I took some interest in replying. But I'm getting the vibe that you don't like me being here-are unbelievers not welcome, especially when they disagree with certain topics? Maybe the crew should make the guild a private one, then. Anyway... hybrid lion dogs and plant spiders don't actually exist, you know that, right? I'm familiar with those photos and with the fact that those photos are nothing but a giant hoax. The person who put them up as "proof" was a troll because they knew there were people on the internet who would actually think they were real. That lion dog, though, is technically real... as in it's just a super fluffy dog that got shaved in such a way to look like a lion. And glowing cats are real in a sense that some cats have been bred to have certain color of skin that would glow under a black light; the purpose was so that cats could be found more easily in the dark, like in situations where they run away and are hiding in a bush and such. It wasn't some arbitrary decision. The actual truth about science, though, is this: it allows people to explore why things are the way they are, which is good because that passion for exploration has birthed amazing and pretty neat discoveries. It's just too bad that some people have crossed the line between right and wrong, have done some terrible things--there's always going to be people like that, anywhere. But do I think that science should oblige the moral boundaries of any religion? No. I don't think we would have such an abundance of knowledge if that was mandatory.
O God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee.
-Johannes Kepler
Quote: But do I think that science should oblige the moral boundaries of any religion?
What would happen to science if it had no moral boundaries, no conscience? Is it ok for us to overstep moral boundaries as long as progress is being made? Are we capable of seeing the long time effects of our bad decisions? Should scientists even be allowed to tamper with things that down the line can do irreparable harm to us all? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 12:59 pm
|
|
|
|
Hey, guild captain.
Your first question is where I begin to disagree with you, and you may very well disagree with me. See, I think there is a difference between religious morality--or perhaps anyone's set of morals--and whatis actually right and wrong. Morals can cause people to do terrible things to others, dictate the lives of strangers, even destroy the lives of strangers in one form or another. Those things are not right, and it's one of the reasons I would never be a part of any religion. Every religion has questionable moral standards.
So if some moral standards are clearly inhumane, then I think it's safe to say the one could beg the question of whether morality is absolute. I don't think it is, because there are plenty of people outside of religion who do their best to be good and do the right thing, every day. They have consciences, as you seem to insinuate they don't--if they didn't, the desire to do good would mean nothing for those people.
I would have to ask, how many religious people allow themselves to question their own morals, to really delve deep into them and have a sense objectivity towards them, a bit of criticism? I don't think it happens often enough.
So yes, I do think it's all right to overstep moral boundaries. Conscience doesn't need to be dictated by morality. Does that mean that conscience outside of religion will naturally agree with religious morality? No, but I've already shared my opinion that expresses why that may very well not be a bad thing. Many scientists are keen on understanding the effects of their work, whether they come now or in the future.And sadly, like I said before, there will always be people who do terrible things, anywhere. Some scientists don't think about the effects of their work; greed could be driving them, power or desperation. Obsession. Religious or not, there are lots of people who hope those scientists will forfeit their efforts, and if not, well... we have to endure and hopefully fix what's been undone through wrong actions. One doesn't need to be dictated by moral standards in order to know when a mistake has been made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
