Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
3.0

Is Genetic Engineering A Sin?

30 posts in this topic

Is gentic engineering a sin?

"Keep ye my laws. Thou shalt not make thy cattle to gender with beasts of any other kind. Thou shalt not sow thy field with different seeds. Thou shalt not wear a garment that is woven of two sorts." (Leviticus 19:19) Douay - Rheims

This quote from the Leviticus deals with mixing of different kinds. Whether its animals, plants or cloth. Does not this forbid the creation of new animal or plant species, by forcing them to breed together (ie genetic engineering)? For modern science wouldn't this apply to genetically engineering new animals or plants. We are already well past experimenting in this area genetically!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christians don't even follow this archaic law, not to mention the author(s) certaintly had no concept of genetic engineering.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's such a good question 0.3

However, I'd paraphrase it a bit .. Instead of asking is it a sin, I'd ask is it moral?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would say genetic engineering is a little unethical.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think genetic engineering is sinful. I do, however, think that the laws of nature are in place for a sound reason, and that we humans presume too much when we infringe upon those laws.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think genetic engineering is sinful. I do, however, think that the laws of nature are in place for a sound reason, and that we humans presume too much when we infringe upon those laws.

i agree 100% with what you said, Its like they say just because we can do it doesnt mean we should

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Not in the slightest.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think genetic engineering is sinful. I do, however, think that the laws of nature are in place for a sound reason, and that we humans presume too much when we infringe upon those laws.

I Totally agree, but there are certain laws that must be obeyed..

Engineering plants/animals that do not seed or reproduce is a sin.

Engineering traits that are not benefitial to the plant or animal is a sin.

Engineering plants/animals purely for profit at the expense of it's quality of life is a sin.

Claiming DNA as Paitent/copyright is a sin.

I for one am Pro Genetic engineering.. But dead against these Morons like monsanto and some other genetisists who abuse the science and are more keen on profit than benefits to the eco system and humanity.. They need to stop genetic engineering right now and need to get their priorities in order before continuing any further imo.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Totally agree, but there are certain laws that must be obeyed..

Engineering plants/animals that do not seed or reproduce is a sin.

Engineering traits that are not benefitial to the plant or animal is a sin.

Engineering plants/animals purely for profit at the expense of it's quality of life is a sin.

Claiming DNA as Paitent/copyright is a sin.

I for one am Pro Genetic engineering.. But dead against these Morons like monsanto and some other genetisists who abuse the science and are more keen on profit than benefits to the eco system and humanity.. They need to stop genetic engineering right now and need to get their priorities in order before continuing any further imo.

What sort of genetic engineering are you 'pro'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What sort of genetic engineering are you 'pro'?

Anything that is benefitial to the plant or animal or human..

I think it may have been back in the 90's when genetisists first engineered some poorer varieties of rice plants to grow twice as many rice bushels. This was a benefit to the plant (more seeds) and to Humanity (yummy yummy) They basically doubled the yield, improved the plants..

The same could be done to some endangered species, the Panda Bear comes to mind.. Here is a species that due to it's very short and infrequent reproductive window is slowly becomming extinct.. Give them the reproductive cycle of a rabbit and vwalla! Panda's will no longer be a threatened species..

Then of course, we have us, humans.. I imagine there are a lot of families out there with genetic traits or abnormalities in their gene pool that they would like to be removed or rewritten, families with a long history of disease or abnormalities that could be saved through genetic engineering or alteration.. Gene therapy, that kind of thing..

Edited by Professor T
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything that is benefitial to the plant or animal or human..

Hmm ...... I don't know, I'd always be concerned about the 'slippery slope'/'thin end of the wedge' thing. To say nothing of who decides on the limits.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm ...... I don't know, I'd always be concerned about the 'slippery slope'/'thin end of the wedge' thing. To say nothing of who decides on the limits.

That's a valid concern everyone should share. :tu:

Today, in this age and climate of corporatism, copyright and financial gains being prioritised over the benefitial needs of life makes me tend towards wanting all forms of genetic engineering being banned until we get our collective priorities sorted. It is because of this system of corporations and copyright and financial gain that most of the uses of Genetic science are geared towards the wrong goals.

Creating plants that's seed will not germinate? Cow's who's milk is designed for human needs as opposed to their own calfs? Suppression of gene therapy in favour of pharma care and it's ongoing costs? It really Pharks me off that humanity has powerful tools to combat suffering and make the world a better place but has no intention or incentive to use them for the right reasons.. And for that reason alone it should be banned until as a species we grow up and learn to use our knowledge properly.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.