29 replies to this topic

[3.0]

ouija ouija, on 27 October 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

But what about the mention of 'a garment that is woven of two sorts'? Heavens! Are you seriously suggesting we rid the world of mixed-fibre fabrics? If not, why not?

I might be able to get by following the Levitacal precepts, but it would be tough.  I see myself wearing leather sandles, blue jeans - "LEVI'S" of course, and a cotton tee, or wool sweater.  If you support a no mixed fabrics approach, and embrace cotton.  You will be supporting American cotton farmers.

But, seriously.  It's interesting that the imagery of weaving mixed fibers is used.  The existence of DNA was learned in our time.  Mixing two strands of differnent fibers, reminds me of two strands of DNA combining.  In this case, it's warning about what not ot combine.

[Mr Walker]

I have faith that humans can and will improve on nature. Nature is a random, unthinking, and chaotic force, in which evolution often creates things which are best fitted to their environment and which thus thrive, but with a very hit and miss  result; and with many imperfections and failures.

For example cancer is a product of nature, and something humans can and will eradicate. This goes for a whole host of other diseases.  I also have faith in human science. Thus, I am all for genetic modification to improve on nature. That applies in all things, but with the usual safeguards we currently apply to medical and scientific advances. We cannot prevent it, and so we must regulate and control it as best we can.
For me, not to develop and use genetic manipulation is a " sin." It is a waste of our talents and abilities.

[ouija ouija]

3.0, on 28 October 2012 - 06:40 AM, said:

But, seriously.  It's interesting that the imagery of weaving mixed fibers is used.  The existence of DNA was learned in our time.  Mixing two strands of differnent fibers, reminds me of two strands of DNA combining.  In this case, it's warning about what not ot combine.

Why do you consider the mention of weaving 'imagery', but you choose to take the mention of plants and animals literally?

[Beany]

If the bible were one's ultimate authority, one might reason that it's a sin. For people like me, though, the concepts of morality or sin are not are pertinent to a discussion of genetic modification. And if one is going to use the bible as the ultimate authority and base all decisions & actions on biblical dogma, then one should be consistent in applying it.

[3.0]

ouija ouija, on 28 October 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

Why do you consider the mention of weaving 'imagery', but you choose to take the mention of plants and animals literally?

The first two examples deal with creating new animal or plant species.  For example, breeding a cow with a goat, which would give you a ... C-oat!  Whereas the last deals with the appearance of a person; or how that persons soul appears if it sins.  Having said that, I do believe that the Jewish people interpreted it literally in there cloth making.

[Seeker79]

Not intrinsically, but I suppose like everything else you can conit a sin with it. I can comit a sin with a hammer, and indeed people have,  that dosnt make using the hammer a sin.

Im with the proffersor. It depends on what we are engeneering it for and how it's used. Monsonto is a monstrocity, the seed company I buy heirlooms from had to premtivly sue them to stop their inevitable attacks on their heirloom farmers.  baker street heirlooms.

Their should be no patents on life. They did not make those genes. They were already there. They should not be able to patent something they did not create. They did not create the organizm nor the gene.

Edited by Seeker79, 29 October 2012 - 03:01 AM.

[ouija ouija]

3.0, on 29 October 2012 - 01:35 AM, said:

The first two examples deal with creating new animal or plant species.  For example, breeding a cow with a goat, which would give you a ... C-oat!  Whereas the last deals with the appearance of a person; or how that persons soul appears if it sins.  Having said that, I do believe that the Jewish people interpreted it literally in there cloth making.

Sorry to keep going on about this(I'm playing Devil's advocate here), but it's one of my pet peeves that people who look to the bible for guidance(and invariably quote it at others), seem to pick and choose and interpret in a completely random fashion to suit themselves. On what authority are you stating that the cloth-weaving can be considered differently to the plants and animals?
Please don't take this as a personal attack because it isn't meant as one

[3.0]

ouija ouija, on 29 October 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

Sorry to keep going on about this(I'm playing Devil's advocate here), but it's one of my pet peeves that people who look to the bible for guidance(and invariably quote it at others), seem to pick and choose and interpret in a completely random fashion to suit themselves. On what authority are you stating that the cloth-weaving can be considered differently to the plants and animals?
Please don't take this as a personal attack because it isn't meant as one

Not on any authority, or education in this area on my part.  Merely my personal opinion, or interpretation.  But, I have been inspired in this direction by having previously read "The Epistle of Barnabas" a early church father.He may have been the same Barnabas that accompanied St. Paul.  He gives a symbolic interpretation of the Jewish Dietary laws.  For example, the ban on eating eagle, hawk, kite or crow means;  to work for your needs rather than watching for and stealing from other people!  His epistle is available in "Early Christian Writings" published by Penquin books.

[aryannatimothy]

If you come to think about it, we should know which one is moral and which is not. Anything that consumes power is unethical because power is evil.

[Mr Walker]

aryannatimothy, on 31 October 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

If you come to think about it, we should know which one is moral and which is not. Anything that consumes power is unethical because power is evil.

Could you explain this a little more?

Is a toaster unethical because it consumes power?
If power is evil, isnt anything which consumes  it ( lessens/destroys/ reduces, the power potential ) ultimately beneficial?

[Mistydawn]

Power from the extraction of energy from those who are not able to defend themselves, empowering the force that extracts and enables it to force itself on others;
Genetic engineers are human beings who do this.
They extract power from others and enable themselves to be empowered.
Whatever their findings, they are playiing a role in which they see themselves as empowered.
Beyond the normal confines of every day folk.

Edited by Mistydawn, 28 November 2012 - 03:16 PM.

[Quaentum]

Plant breeding predates the Bible by several thousand years.  It was well established where ever farming occurred.  The warning in the Bible, at least where plants are concerned, came a bit late.  Much like warning you to move out of the way after the car hits you.

[markdohle]

Mistydawn, on 27 October 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

Gotta look at Leviticus again... good grief, there is so many different do's and don'ts I get swamped!
Genetically mixing is to me, is the act of playing God, but how do I know this is wrong or right? I am swamped!

The Jews were talking about mixing of religion, the Jews and their neighbors were of the same race....just different tribes.

peace
mark

[freetoroam]

Darkwind, on 28 October 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

Humans have been doing genetic engineering since we started farming. Which is before that line was written.  We have been breeding plants and animals a long time.  We changed grasses to wheat, corn from a little tiny cob to a big one. Look at all the different kinds of farm animals we have.  They aren't natural, we have changed them genetically to be what we want them to be. Most of them wouldn't survive without us to care from them.

Too true, we have. This may also equate to why we have certain cancers in some countries and not in others. Who knows what it is doing to us over time...only time will tell.
look at the animals which have had to be put down over the years because of the mixing of their foods, crickey, we were eating the produce for years before the effect took hold of the animals, what will it do to us in time, what is it doing to us  now which we have not realised yet? What cancers will come in the future because of this, it may not even happen to us, it may be passed down genetically.

Edited by freetoroam, 28 November 2012 - 08:32 PM.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Darkwind, on 28 October 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

Humans have been doing genetic engineering since we started farming. Which is before that line was written.  We have been breeding plants and animals a long time.  We changed grasses to wheat, corn from a little tiny cob to a big one. Look at all the different kinds of farm animals we have.  They aren't natural, we have changed them genetically to be what we want them to be. Most of them wouldn't survive without us to care from them.

100% correct, though I think what concerns is the speed with which such advances are now made. Back in the days breeding plants and animals was a slow process taking generations. We speed this up too much and we may get very unpleasant surprise. Though here I am more concerned about manipulation of animals because we are related to much of what we eat, unlike with plants.