added. the other day the vatican as added new sins for us. they added the polluting of the earth as one, and genetic manipulation.
i love how the vatican is able to just change the rules of the game mid stream. as if god himself said, say eight thousand years later, 'oh, i forgot to mention...'
what am i able to 'buy' are the ten commandments. right from god. great. fine. i am also able to buy into the two 'new' ones that jesus gave us. hey, that's the son of god. i can buy that too. but this i cannot buy.
speaking philosophically this all just goes back to plato's euthyphro.
the environment fine. whatever. god said in the bible that the earth is for man to do what he wants. so now we can't? nice. just another contradiction within the catholic church. it's not like this is something new.
however this 'genetic manipulation' thing. how far or short does this go? what is genetic manipulation? are they just trying to stay away from stem cells here? even though this research is able to help humanity, or just allow use to 'rot' in our misery. is it to stay away from cloning? which i really don't care about cloning to begin with. however; what i do care about is possible 'manufacturing' of organs. i believe that is a tremendous step in biomedical research. to 'harvest' parts for those who need them. kidneys. lungs. hell, even hearts. can you image what that would do for organ transplant recipients? wow.
are they trying to keep away from 'playing god'?
now on the 'short' side of things...is taking blood pressure medication 'genetic manipulation'? is this not a form of 'playing god'? manipulating my own biological make-up.
how far is the vatican willing to go with this? shouldn't we be concerned with helping humanity, and do whatever it takes to elevate suffering in the world? if i have the ability to elevate such a thing, then i believe it becomes my moral duty to do such a thing.
[god's.butt.smells]
shalom...
13.3.08
new sin has been...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Speaking of Euthyphro, I thought you might like to read this article:
"A Christian Answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma" (link).
what you have presented is an argument based on faith. and this is not a valid argument. faith is a feeling within you. i have just the same amount of faith that it will rain today, than i do in a god. yes, 'in', and not of.
the view of socrates and russell is distorted. if we would continue on in our readings of socrates, we will find that socrates does hold a belief in an after life in which he will be judged (in a sense). and once asked by russell 'what if you die, and beyond a reason of a doubt you stand before god, what would you say?' russell's reply 'god why didn't you give me more proof.' (this is paraphrased, but the point is the same).
bob's (who is a pastor, so his view is already bias) point is true about russell, he could have called his work any other name, but it was the christians that were persecuting him; not the muslims, or any other group. however the point that russell makes is valid...take any argument for god's existence, and replace it with zeus, and you will get the same outcome.
what socrates presents us with in the euthyphro is a logical argument...is it good because god commands it to be good, or is it good from some other reason, and if that is the case, then is god bound to that reason?
other christian philosophers have dealt with this problem, and have made the separation between faith (which is unable to be proven) and reason (which is, in a sense, known). this is not a question of faith; which bob is relying on; but rather a question of logic, and reason. faith is un-arguable.
if god makes arbitrary commands; which are said to be good, then he could have just as easily said that rape is good; and how does a perfect god provide us with arbitrary commands? morality and immorality become morally neutral without god's commands.
shalom...
Post a Comment