Embryology bill defeated

[Mycernius]

Stop stepping around the questions by threatening me with the actions of your myth. Just answer the question, What is an embryo before it has a soul? Or are you going to hide behind your words again, behind your myth?

I thought you do not believe in God yet you are very forward with sentences to condemn Him!

You condemn it yourself by your own actions and words.

[The servant]

Originally Posted by Mycernius

Stop stepping around the questions by threatening me with the actions of your myth. Just answer the question, What is an embryo before it has a soul? Or are you going to hide behind your words again, behind your myth?


You condemn it yourself by your own actions and words.

I have said before I choose whom I talk to here and I do not relish talking to you or the monkey head, I only come here to talk to people who believe in God, and share opinions with them so we can try to enlighten each other on some points, one of the laws of Creation is the law of attraction of homogeneous species, like to like.
You do not appeal to me but you infiltrate almost every thread, and I do try to avoid you but sometimes you are so insulting and of track from the truth that I find it hard.
So I suggest that you research on the soul and the embryo after procreation, unless I am drawn into the discussion by someone else, and I choose to answer them, to you then it must still as you put it remain a myth!

The servant

[Mycernius]

Originally Posted by The servant

I have said before I choose whom I talk to here and I do not relish talking to you or the monkey head

It isn't a monkey head, it is a character called Jet Black from an anime series called Cowboy Bebop.

You do not appeal to me but you infiltrate almost every thread, and I do try to avoid you but sometimes you are so insulting and of track from the truth that I find it hard.

I have asked you to answer a simple question, which you are still avoiding. Just answer the question, what is an embryo before it has a soul? Stop skirting the question.
You think I am insulting? That's rich from someone who has taken the high and mightly attitude on any thread that has made you question your beliefs. I suggest, which I have done before, that you look in a mirror before making statements like that. Your attitude towards anyione who doesn't like, or questions your beliefs is insulting.

So I suggest that you research on the soul and the embryo after procreation, unless I am drawn into the discussion by someone else, and I choose to answer them, to you then it must still as you put it remain a myth!

In other words you haven't got answer.
There are several different beliefs on the soul and the embryo. Catholics believe that the soul enters on conception, which begs the question do identical twins share the same soul. Your beliefs are based on a book written by a falible human, that bends the beliefs of christianity to suit his own beliefs. Your own chrsitian beliefs are at odds with others. I question you because you seem unable to question them yourself.

[friendly hardline atheist]

Hello Someday,

When it seemed we were about to close this thing down, your post 29 puts it all back to square one again.

First, I notice you didn't address the issue of you not showing any Vatican support for genetic engineering of skin cell DNA. Is that at least one point where you agree you were in wrong, or is that one going to pop up again as well in the next posts?

While earlier you were moving the goal posts on combining human and animal DNA (broadening it to any tissue), you now seem to be doing the same on cord blood research:

Originally Posted by Someday

I am not talking strictly about recombinant DNA-technology or cell fusion technique. I'm talking about newer technologies, newer ways to cause differentiation. This is why I include amniotic and blood cord research in the mix. The harvesting may not always require genetic manipulation, but the research that is trying to differentiate these cells is.

You said cord blood stem cell research without qualification. Trying to shift attention, move the goal posts, or 'What I actually meant was' won't work with me. Re-read the article on UCB stem cells you yourself linked to, and read about the different techniques involved, not just harvesting or preparational steps but the actual experiments themselves. And that genetic manipulation doesn't come up among them, it covers only very few of the extensive number of references in that review article. So your point #1 on your list of 4 was simply incorrect. Trying to re-insert an error you were already corrected on earlier in the thread won't do much to get you out of trouble.

Originally Posted by Someday

Since I don't think you believe me about the Vatican's stance on genetic engineering is, and has been for some time, I found an article that expressly states the Vatican position clearly. This was given by a Cardinal, not a mere Bishop. He is Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, head of the Vatican health department,Please read the last paragraph.

What's new here? Another pre-2008 article doesn't add much to the other two you had already linked. Show me something that dates from after bishop Girottis statement and I'll readily accept that, as I did with the GM food example.

Originally Posted by Someday

If I were to pretend that there actually are 7 new deadly sins issued by the Vatican (at a conference on confession of all places), I would quote Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, (head of the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Vatican body which oversees confessions and plenary indulgences) who made the statement to begin with.

"God was offended not only by stealing, blaspheming or coveting your neighbor's wife but by ruining the environment, conducting immoral scientific experiments and genetic manipulation."

Note his use of the word immoral. In other words, not all scientific experiments and genetic manipulation, but immoral ones.

Wrong quote. Here is what he said, according to 1680 articles indexed by Google (I did notice that The Sydney Morning Herald and a few blogs echo what you quoted):

“You offend God not only by stealing, blaspheming or coveting your neighbour’s wife, but also by ruining the environment, carrying out morally debatable scientific experiments, or allowing genetic manipulations which alter DNA or compromise embryos”

No reservations there, any genetic manipulation that alters DNA. Numerical majority in Google doesn't necessarily make it right. But why do you think only the SMH and a handful of others put it the way you do?
Also, as there are hundreds of sites that echo the other version of the quote for every one that echoes yours, I assume you must have seen the other version too before you made your post? Awfully coincidental that you just happen to stumble across a version of it that is so extremely rare when that version is more convenient to you. It almost smells as if the YECs have been up to their favourite hobby of quote mining when these multiple versions of a quote appear on the web.

Peter

[Gray]

Originally Posted by The servant

I have said before I choose whom I talk to here ... I only come here to talk to people who believe in God...

If memory serves, it was me you said that to, after I questioned some examples of bad things happening to non-believers.

Isn't it your responsibility as a Christian to spread the word and educate the rest of us?

We're asking questions about things that don't make sense to us - you have the answers, don't you?

[Mycernius]

Originally Posted by Gray

If memory serves, it was me you said that to, after I questioned some examples of bad things happening to non-believers.

Isn't it your responsibility as a Christian to spread the word and educate the rest of us?

We're asking questions about things that don't make sense to us - you have the answers, don't you?

No he doesn't. Every time he is backed into a difficult corner he flees from it and mentions that he doesn't want to talk to atheists. Wouldn't mind so much, but he states all his beliefs as solid fact.

[The servant]

Originally Posted by Gray

Isn't it your responsibility as a Christian to spread the word and educate the rest of us?

Sorry not my problem, I am not your average church going Christian, I do not have any congregations to fill, I am just a human being, I do not go around begging for people to believe in God, God does not need us but we need God!
If you shut Him out of your lives it is up to you.

I believe my purpose here is to introduce a particular book, to people as to whether they take an interest and follow up what I have told them about is up to them.
I then consider my job done.
I have done this many times.

Beyond this I am also told “not to cast pearls before swine” and from the words used here by many against God our Creator I would use a stronger term than swine.

Originally Posted by Gray

We're asking questions about things that don't make sense to us - you have the answers, don't you?

I have been given a lot of knowledge, but if you want it go and buy the book as I did!
John the Baptist refused to mix with people who came to him, when he was incarnated on the earth, and they were often trying to trick him, he called them a den of vipers.

Perhaps If you had not been so loud mouthed against God in your words here, and you were true seekers of the Truth, I would have continued to try and enlighten you.


Peter

[The servant]

Originally Posted by Mycernius

Your own chrsitian beliefs are at odds with others. I question you because you seem unable to question them yourself.

Truth is eternal, why should I question what I know to be true?
(what is the next word to come back arrogance?)

Peter

[Someday]

Wrong quote. Here is what he said, according to 1680 articles indexed by Google (I did notice that The Sydney Morning Herald and a few blogs echo what you quoted):

This is what I get for picking a quote out of my local newspaper. You are correct. My quote was wrong and I retract it. In fact, your quote is equally wrong. The internet media and the media in general has misled us again. I read what you wrote and turned to Google as you did, and I actually came up with a wide variety of quotes. The one you give is the dominate one. It's wrong though.
I decided to turn to the source. The article that appeared in L’Osservatore Romano on 9March08, written by Nicola Gori.

Interestingly, when you read the question asked, it explicitly asks "In your opinion, what are the “new sins”?" It does not ask what the Vatican's stance is. Simply this one bishops opinion. No where in it does it say anything about new deadly sins, or a Vatican issuance of new sins. It says nothing about replacing the 7 deadly sins, or even adding to them.
This is media myth making, and you fell for it hook line and sinker. At this point, only a bias against the Catholic church can cause one to not be skeptical about this media myth.

Here is an example of someone that doesn't exactly like the Catholic church realizing early on that he had been duped by the media

I don't think the Vatican has overturned any of their previous stances here. They still respect moral genetic engineering, and all of the articles I listed that predate this interview still stand. If you want to continue in your belief in this media myth, go ahead. You will have to do a lot better job of convincing me this myth is true.

Blessings

[Mycernius]

Originally Posted by The servant

Truth is eternal, why should I question what I know to be true?

(what is the next word to come back arrogance?)

Peter

If the shoe fits. I can think of others as well, but seeing this forum might not allow some of them