Unbelieveable: Catholic Bishops Defend Human-animal Hybrids

[philosophette]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1303010' date='Jun 27 2007, 02:00 AM']I would warn posters here to avoid some of the language and references being used by others. "Chimera" is a language-ploy geared to help people see these embryos as less than human -- monsterous at best. The same people that put out this language are the same who refer to a baby in the womb as a "fetus." The embryos spoken of here are very young human beings, conceived from human egg and sperm, later genetically altered with animal DNA. Imagine using similar references for the homeless people who have had scientific experiments performed on them. Should we call a homeless man "a Cyborg" after he has had his arm cut off and replaced with a prosthetic limb? These are human beings who have been severely abused by society. Let's not disrespect them further.

As well, to tie these embryos to the Nephalim in the Bible is to participate in pseudo-biblical hyper-drama. People who would do so may commit the same sin as Nimrod at the Tower of Babel -- they seek to make a name for themselves apart from God. This seems to be a very popular thing these days with false "religious" leaders who make a ton of money selling books and speaking engagements about anything that can scare our money into their pockets. We live in troubled times, no doubt, but to blow these things out of proportion is only to confuse the issues. It may be fun to get everyone frightened and hysterical, but we'll end up with no credibility when it comes time for each of us to speak out against these atrocities. Let's start with good solid reasoning and work from there.[/quote]


Bravo!

[Budge]

[quote name='jckinsman' post='1302977' date='Jun 27 2007, 12:00 AM'] I'm so thankful after 2000+ years that someone got it right! It's about time! If it wasn't for the protestants where would WE catholics be?[b] Maybe even funding a post world tower of Babel,...once again,eh?.[/b]..........this is totally amazing to me! [/quote]

What do you call this?
[quote]
Date: 2004-02-11

Violation of International Law Leads to Anarchy, Cardinal Martino Warns

Says Nations Must Be Willing to Cede Some Power in Deference to U.N.

TRANI, Italy, FEB. 11, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Wary of the law of force, Cardinal Renato Martino warned that "the violation of international law plunges everyone into a condition of anarchy and profound illegality."

Cardinal Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, expressed this conviction last weekend when addressing a Congress of Catholic Jurists, being held here on the theme "Peace and International Law."
[u][b]
Referring to the main points in John Paul II's message for the 2004 World Day of Peace, Cardinal Martino emphasized the irreplaceable function of international law in the defense of peace itself.

The cardinal said that the growth of such law requires that states be willing to cede ever-larger shares of their sovereignty to achieve security and the universal common good.
[/b][/u]
It is the task of international law to avoid the dominance of the law of the strongest or the wealthiest, and to substitute the law of force with the force of law, said the cardinal who for 16 years was the Holy See's permanent observer to the United Nations.

He cautioned that the violation of international law could have lasting negative repercussions.

Cardinal Martino contended that the prohibition of the use of force, except for cases authorized by the U.N. Security Council and established in the U.N. Charter, is an obligatory rule of the international order. He echoed a contention of the Pope, that war is always a defeat of humanity.

the United Nations "is the most important instrument of synthesis and coordination of international life," Cardinal Martino said. For the United Nations to carry out its function, states must give up unilateral actions that undermine its strength and contravene the principles of its Charter, he continued.[/quote]

[Budge]

[quote]I would warn posters here to avoid some of the language and references being used by others. "Chimera" is a language-ploy geared to help people see these embryos as less than human -- monsterous at best. The same people that put out this language are the same who refer to a baby in the womb as a "fetus." The embryos spoken of here are very young human beings, conceived from human egg and sperm, later genetically altered with animal DNA. Imagine using similar references for the homeless people who have had scientific experiments performed on them. Should we call a homeless man "a Cyborg" after he has had his arm cut off and replaced with a prosthetic limb? These are human beings who have been severely abused by society. Let's not disrespect them further.
[/quote]You have got to be kidding me.

These are not INTACT embryos.

Parts are taken from embryos and parts from animal embryos to make a new "whole", at that point the human embryo is already "destroyed"

"Ye shall be as gods" is the underpinning to all of this....

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism[/url]

{A fully human man with a prosethic or anyone else with a disfiguring disease, or condition has nothing to do with this}

[quote]
As well, to tie these embryos to the Nephalim in the Bible is to participate in pseudo-biblical hyper-drama.[/quote]

No its for those of us who realize the deep evil behind this and who believe the Word of God.

[quote]


People who would do so may commit the same sin as Nimrod at the Tower of Babel -- they seek to make a name for themselves apart from God[/quote].

No thats the transhumanists who in the link above state...
[quote]
Transhumanism (sometimes abbreviated >H or H+) is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of new sciences and technologies to enhance human mental and physical abilities and aptitudes, and ameliorate what it regards as undesirable and unnecessary aspects of the human condition, such as stupidity, suffering, disease, aging and involuntary death. Transhumanist thinkers study the possibilities and consequences of developing and using human enhancement techniques and other emerging technologies for these purposes. Possible dangers, as well as benefits, of powerful new technologies that might radically change the conditions of human life are also of concern to the transhumanist movement.[1]

Although the first known use of the term "transhumanism" dates from 1957, the contemporary meaning is a product of the 1980s, when a group of scientists, artists, and futurists based in the United States began to organize what has since grown into the transhumanist movement. [b]Transhumanist thinkers postulate that human beings will eventually be transformed into beings with such greatly expanded abilities as to merit the label "posthuman."[/b][1][/quote]
[quote]. We live in troubled times, no doubt, but to blow these things out of proportion is only to confuse the issues. It may be fun to get everyone frightened and hysterical, but we'll end up with no credibility when it comes time for each of us to speak out against these atrocities. Let's start with good solid reasoning and work from there.[/quote]

It is interesting to me how Catholics always want everything understated including great evils like this.

Edited June 27, 2007 by Budge

[cmotherofpirl]

And its always interesting how you run around proclaiming the sky is falling, like evil is something new.

[Budge]

cmother why dont you just write instead.

"I do not care" because that is what you mean isnt it?

Otherwise why be upset?

Ive gotten that Catholic response more times then I can count. I suppose in American society to think about hard issues isnt too popular, theres shopping and house decorating to be done.

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='Budge' post='1302489' date='Jun 26 2007, 08:53 PM']Dont fall for that Sethite explanation they know teach in most seminaries.

The Bible is to be believed.

The shame is Catholics generally as a whole are Amillenialists, so they continually get prophecy wrong, a literal dispensationalist reading is what makes any sense of what is happening and squares it with scripture.

You need to understand the massive importance of a strange passage in Genesis, Gen 6:4 and what was going on, THEN, and now.

When you do, you can understand why these very strange things of our times and world, and fit them seamlessly into scripture.

Then the "Watchers" { fallen angels } were messing around with genetic manipulation, both with women, producing Nephilim, who in turn produced Gibborim, and with Chimera's.

All you have to do, is to look at ALL THE ART showing human/animal beings back then, to know that in some distant pre-flood past, this actually happened, and it is the seminal genetic memory passed along by Noah and his Sons, post dispersion around the world after the Tower of Bab-El, that you have memorialized.

Jesus said then, "[b]AS IT WAS IN THE DAYS OF NOAH....SO SHALL IT BE.."[/b]

And pointed to the end of time when the Tribulation was going to be birthed from "pangs, to reality"

Your bishops dont have a clue.

[url="http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/05_Genetic/050126.animal-human.html"]http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/05_G...imal-human.html[/url][/quote]

[quote]Dont fall for that Sethite explanation they know teach in most seminaries.[/quote]And don't fall for a strict literal interpretation of Genesis Protestant.

[quote]The Bible is to be believed.[/quote]

So...this is a VERY general statement that can encompass a LOT of things. Do you believe that Eve was literally formed from Adams' rib?

[quote]You need to understand the massive importance of a strange passage in Genesis, Gen 6:4 and what was going on, THEN, and now.[/quote]Sure. Here is the importance: [i]The sons of God... The descendants of Seth and Enos are here called sons of God from their religion and piety: whereas the ungodly race of Cain, who by their carnal affections lay grovelling upon the earth, are called the children of men. The unhappy consequence of the former marrying with the latter, ought to be a warning to Christians to be very circumspect in their marriages; and not to suffer themselves to be determined in their choice by their carnal passion, to the prejudice of virtue or religion.[/i]

[quote]When you do, you can understand why these very strange things of our times and world, and fit them seamlessly into scripture.[/quote]

Fortunately, I judge the very strange things of our times and world not just from scripture. Funny, you can't do that.

[quote]All you have to do, is to look at ALL THE ART showing human/animal beings back then, to know that in some distant pre-flood past, this actually happened, and it is the seminal genetic memory passed along by Noah and his Sons, post dispersion around the world after the Tower of Bab-El, that you have memorialized.[/quote]So if it's art then it's real? Are the human/animal beings of greek mythology real too?

[quote]Jesus said then, "[b]AS IT WAS IN THE DAYS OF NOAH....SO SHALL IT BE.."[/b][/quote]

Yes, precisely. In the days of Noah, men wanted to be like God. They were finding God within their carnal possesions. They were finding divinity within themselves. Instead of looking to the heavens, they looked upon the Earth and they convinced themselves that they were God. This is true today. It is called Relativism, Modernism and Materialism. So of course, Jesus, like always is correct.

[quote]Your bishops dont have a clue.[/quote]

Apparently, they have more of a clue than you do. They're bishops aren't they?

I have an exercise for you. Find God outside the Bible.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1303135' date='Jun 27 2007, 03:50 PM']So if it's art then it's real? Are the human/animal beings of greek mythology real too?[/quote]

As for the art, if this is reference to, say, the Egyptian gods, the argument for chimeras doesn't work. The Egyptian gods started out in animal form, but with human attributes (for example, families, their personalities, etc). They gradually came to be seen in human form, but kept the animal heads to distinguish which god it was (and not all of them did that). Okay, I realize that was off-topic, I've just been looking at images of Egyptian gods all day (working on my dissertation).

Anyway, as for these not being human embryos, I strongly disagree with that. There are evidently 3 ways of creating these "hybrid" embryos. The first involves injecting animal cells into a human embryo - the embryo already exists. The second is injecting animal DNA into a human embryo - again, the human embryo already exists. The third form is the most radical, in that human nuclei are injected into an animal egg from which nearly all animal DNA has been removed. In that case they are actually forming the embryo there. But it still is human DNA, almost entirely, and, as has been said, deserves life. This is what I was reading: [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,,2081756,00.html"]hybrid embryos[/url]

[prose]

[quote name='prose' post='1302372' date='Jun 26 2007, 03:36 PM']Budge. Seriously, answer my question.

Does a human embryo have a soul? Does man remove this soul when he adds DNA? If so, man is capable of removing souls? If not, did the embryo never have a soul to begin with?[/quote]

Bump question.

[Budge]

[quote]Does a human embryo have a soul? Does man remove this soul when he adds DNA? If so, man is capable of removing souls? If not, did the embryo never have a soul to begin with?[/quote]

Here is my conjecture....

when human DNA is missing and animal DNA replaced, it doesnt have a soul,

the human "DIES" in essence when the "animal" DNA is put into the embryo...the embyro is the foundation of the whole human person.

So when these mad-scientists add animal DNA to human embryos they are in a sense "killing" them.

There are some who because the BIble says the life is in the blood, believe the soul comes then as soon as fetus has its own blood stream--which isnt true when it is only in embryo state.

I believe the BIble makes it clear these creatures do not have souls per my above posts.\

This is an interesting discussion here.

I dont see any inconsistency, My answer would have been TWO SOULS and one is deceased.

[url="http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2006/08/one-woman-two-souls.html"]http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortshar...-two-souls.html[/url]

Edited June 27, 2007 by Budge

[Budge]

[quote]I have an exercise for you. Find God outside the Bible.[/quote]

I already did.

I found that "god"[actually devil, antichrist, 'god' of forces] and he was a waste of my time. {as a theosophical Unitarian Universalist}

The one true God has expressed His will, commandments and has warned about things in His Word in the BIble.

You either believe in Him {Jesus is called THE WORD} for a reason or you do not.

Edited June 27, 2007 by Budge

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='Budge' post='1303391' date='Jun 27 2007, 04:40 PM']I already did.

I found that "god"[actually devil, antichrist, 'god' of forces] and he was a waste of my time. {as a theosophical Unitarian Universalist}

The one true God has expressed His will, commandments and has warned about things in His Word in the BIble.

You either believe in Him {Jesus is called THE WORD} for a reason or you do not.[/quote]

[quote]You either believe in Him {Jesus is called THE WORD} for a reason or you do not.[/quote]Yes, Jesus is the Word. And what are the other two persons of the Trinity? Are they limited to the Bible also?

[quote]I already did.

I found that "god"[actually devil, antichrist, 'god' of forces] and he was a waste of my time. {as a theosophical Unitarian Universalist}[/quote]

That....smells of elderberries. So God doesn't exists outside the Bible according to you? Or where you just looking in the wrong places?

[quote]The one true God has expressed His will, commandments and has warned about things in His Word in the BIble.[/quote]

And what did God do before the Bible? How did he express his will? Where did Christians find God before the Bible?

[Ragamuffin]

Budge,

I think you're still not getting what the bishops are saying here. They aren't supporting this practice and the purpose of this statement wasn't to give an exhaustive dissertation on all their views on the subject. They've made it clear already that they think the entire practice is immoral. All they are saying here is, "We don't know yet what we are doing or what we've created, so rather than risk killing a person, let's assume it is one and treat it accordingly" as opposed to the prevailing wisdom of the scientific community which is: "Hey! We've got funding! What could it hurt?"

[jckinsman]

[quote name='Budge' post='1303036' date='Jun 27 2007, 07:15 AM']What do you call this?[/quote]
(let us refer to the "whole message" from Pope John Paul 2 message,in 2004's World day of peace, Budge!)
Keep searching please.......I always find your posts very entertaining. Typical, for a ex-catholic who hates the Church though!...........while the subject in this thread is so important,trying to say that the church is for this, is so very laughable. JC

Edited June 27, 2007 by jckinsman

[prose]

[quote]This is an interesting discussion here.

I dont see any inconsistency, My answer would have been TWO SOULS and one is deceased.

[url="http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortshar...-two-souls.html"]http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortshar...-two-souls.html[/url][/quote]

That [i]is[/i] an interesting discussion. I would lean towards that one is deceased too, but then you have the idea that a deceased body is within a living one...

I hear what you are saying about chimeras. I think you are simply thinking that the Church supports them because the leaders have stated not to be too quick to judge what these things are. I think that is a reasonable warning from the Church. As you have seen, the idea of creating these has been strongly condemned by the Church. But so has abortion, and contraception, and these things continue in society.

Although the Church condemns something immoral, it doesn't mean that secular society will stop it. In the case that this continues, we must be open to all humanity (not that I believe these will be "humans" per se). I feel sad for the many, many children (babies) that will be murdered for this cause.

[MichaelF]

Budge, you are both offensive and uneducated.

The embryos in question are [i]h sapiens[/i] that have been modified post-fertilization (conception). It is no more licit to kill or otherwise persecute them than it would be to harm Ashanti Silva (first human to recieve gene therapy for a deficient immune reaction).

The Bishops are (wisely) not attempting to close the barn door after the Biotech horse is gone, but trying to head the "what is human" debate off at the pass. If modified [i]h sapiens[/i] are not entitled to protection under the law, we're paving the way for the next Holocaust. The Abortion industry has nothing on what will happen if human-derived organisms are classified as simply experimental subjects.

Nephilim? Please. Dan Brown territory...


Everyone else: My degree is in Molecular Biology (well, my BS anyway. My MS is Mech Engineering). I'm not current on the State Of The Art, but much has occured in the last 5 years. Between the research into turning Adult Stem Cells into pluripotent pseudo-Embryonic Stem Cells (which will likely torpedo the use of "spare" embryos for SCs), artificial wombs, and gene therapy......the world is changing rapidly. It's incumbent upon us to educate ourselves and to be swayed neither by the scaremongering nor the utilitarian arguments.
This is a largely positive branch of Science and Technology, but it's also largely market driven.

Edited June 27, 2007 by MichaelF

[MichaelF]

[quote name='Budge' post='1303037' date='Jun 27 2007, 07:23 AM']These are not INTACT embryos.

Parts are taken from embryos and parts from animal embryos to make a new "whole", at that point the human embryo is already "destroyed"[/quote]


You just lost.


"Fusion" at that level is impossible (and likely to remain that way). Cell cultures or Genes are taken from one organism and implanted into a ([b]complete[/b]) second organism.

This isn't Frankenstein. You cannot simply mix & match. You have to have an intact substrate (a viable organism). Thus, the human embryos will be the substrate that non-human genes or tissues are implanted onto.

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='MichaelF' post='1303581' date='Jun 27 2007, 06:43 PM']Budge, you are both offensive and uneducated.

The embryos in question are [i]h sapiens[/i] that have been modified post-fertilization (conception). It is no more licit to kill or otherwise persecute them than it would be to harm Ashanti Silva (first human to recieve gene therapy for a deficient immune reaction).

The Bishops are (wisely) not attempting to close the barn door after the Biotech horse is gone, but trying to head the "what is human" debate off at the pass. If modified [i]h sapiens[/i] are not entitled to protection under the law, we're paving the way for the next Holocaust. The Abortion industry has nothing on what will happen if human-derived organisms are classified as simply experimental subjects.

Nephilim? Please. Dan Brown territory...
Everyone else: My degree is in Molecular Biology (well, my BS anyway. My MS is Mech Engineering). I'm not current on the State Of The Art, but much has occured in the last 5 years. Between the research into turning Adult Stem Cells into pluripotent pseudo-Embryonic Stem Cells (which will likely torpedo the use of "spare" embryos for SCs), artificial wombs, and gene therapy......the world is changing rapidly. It's incumbent upon us to educate ourselves and to be swayed neither by the scaremongering nor the utilitarian arguments.
This is a largely positive branch of Science and Technology, but it's also largely market driven.[/quote]

Ahh...Intelligence! What a breath of fresh air. Always good to have that.

Well said MichaelF.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='MichaelF' post='1303581' date='Jun 27 2007, 06:43 PM']Budge, you are both offensive and uneducated.

The embryos in question are [i]h sapiens[/i] that have been modified post-fertilization (conception). It is no more licit to kill or otherwise persecute them than it would be to harm Ashanti Silva (first human to recieve gene therapy for a deficient immune reaction).

The Bishops are (wisely) not attempting to close the barn door after the Biotech horse is gone, but trying to head the "what is human" debate off at the pass. If modified [i]h sapiens[/i] are not entitled to protection under the law, we're paving the way for the next Holocaust. The Abortion industry has nothing on what will happen if human-derived organisms are classified as simply experimental subjects.

Nephilim? Please. Dan Brown territory...
Everyone else: My degree is in Molecular Biology (well, my BS anyway. My MS is Mech Engineering). I'm not current on the State Of The Art, but much has occured in the last 5 years. Between the research into turning Adult Stem Cells into pluripotent pseudo-Embryonic Stem Cells (which will likely torpedo the use of "spare" embryos for SCs), artificial wombs, and gene therapy......the world is changing rapidly. It's incumbent upon us to educate ourselves and to be swayed neither by the scaremongering nor the utilitarian arguments.
This is a largely positive branch of Science and Technology, but it's also largely market driven.[/quote]
Hurray, an educated adult response!!!!!

[Ragamuffin]

[quote name='MichaelF' post='1303610' date='Jun 27 2007, 04:57 PM']You just lost.
"Fusion" at that level is impossible (and likely to remain that way). Cell cultures or Genes are taken from one organism and implanted into a ([b]complete[/b]) second organism.

This isn't Frankenstein. You cannot simply mix & match. You have to have an intact substrate (a viable organism). Thus, the human embryos will be the substrate that non-human genes or tissues are implanted onto.[/quote]

pwn3d.

[abercius24]

[quote name='Ragamuffin' post='1303892' date='Jun 27 2007, 11:19 PM']pwn3d.[/quote]

MichaelF is right. Scientists have barely begun to minipulate individual chromosomes within a specific species. They are far from being able to merge human chromosomes with animal chromosomes. It's more complicated than trying to fit one billion peice puzzle into another billion peice puzzle to make one new puzzle. They simply don't fit.