3.0 Posted October 27, 2012 #1 Share Posted October 27, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rlyeh Posted October 27, 2012 #2 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Christians don't even follow this archaic law, not to mention the author(s) certaintly had no concept of genetic engineering. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ouija ouija Posted October 27, 2012 #3 Share Posted October 27, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninhursag Posted October 27, 2012 #4 Share Posted October 27, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notoverrated Posted October 27, 2012 #5 Share Posted October 27, 2012 i would say genetic engineering is a little unethical. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mistydawn Posted October 27, 2012 #6 Share Posted October 27, 2012 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizzieboo Posted October 27, 2012 #7 Share Posted October 27, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReaperS_ParadoX Posted October 27, 2012 #8 Share Posted October 27, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted October 27, 2012 #9 Share Posted October 27, 2012 No. Not in the slightest. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor T Posted October 27, 2012 #10 Share Posted October 27, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ouija ouija Posted October 27, 2012 #11 Share Posted October 27, 2012 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'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor T Posted October 27, 2012 #12 Share Posted October 27, 2012 (edited) 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 October 27, 2012 by Professor T 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ouija ouija Posted October 27, 2012 #13 Share Posted October 27, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor T Posted October 27, 2012 #14 Share Posted October 27, 2012 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. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Greenman Posted October 28, 2012 #15 Share Posted October 28, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3.0 Posted October 28, 2012 Author #16 Share Posted October 28, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted October 28, 2012 #17 Share Posted October 28, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ouija ouija Posted October 28, 2012 #18 Share Posted October 28, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beany Posted October 28, 2012 #19 Share Posted October 28, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3.0 Posted October 29, 2012 Author #20 Share Posted October 29, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Crane Feather Posted October 29, 2012 #21 Share Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) 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 October 29, 2012 by Seeker79 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ouija ouija Posted October 29, 2012 #22 Share Posted October 29, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3.0 Posted October 30, 2012 Author #23 Share Posted October 30, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aryannatimothy Posted October 31, 2012 #24 Share Posted October 31, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted October 31, 2012 #25 Share Posted October 31, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now