Christians please read...

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No one's trying to stop stem cell research -- just the ones that involve human cloning and destruction of embryos. In fact, adult stem cell research is far more promising from a medical perspective than ESCR and has already yielded several treatments (ESCR has yet to provide one).

Possibly because of all the restaints on it and the lack of funding. It is just plain wrong to say that adult stem cells are more promising. The scientists involved all say that embryonic stem cells hold much more promise.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You're not answering the question. If the Church speaks up when the State violates human rights, why is that not a violation of the separation of church and state? After all, it's quite clear the Church is trying to influence the State!

Oh I see your point. I know that Pope John Paul II was against the church influencing the state even in cases of human rights abuse. I don't see that the church is influencing the state with purly christian ideology in this case. Its not the same as trying to force ID into schools. Clearly thats a matter of belief. But respect for human rights is gernally intrinsic to all human morals. It is not necessary for the church to oppose poor human rights from a Chritian veiwpoint. People can oppose the state from a human veiwpoint.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
Possibly because of all the restaints on it and the lack of funding.

Actually, ESCR has been around far longer (about twice as long, in fact) than adult stem cell research. And, AFAICS, the only restriction in place on ESCR in the US is that federal funding is limited to the use of pre-2002 lines. As the following article shows, that has had virtually no detrimental effect (quite the opposite, possibly) on funding (state and private) of ESCR:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34993.html

I can't find the exact figures now, but funding provided for adult stem cell research pales in comparison.

It is just plain wrong to say that adult stem cells are more promising. The scientists involved all say that embryonic stem cells hold much more promise.

Quite a few disagree, in fact. If you happen to personally know such a researcher, try asking him/her how an ESCR-based cure will get around the problem of rejection by the recepient's body (incidentally, this is not an issue with adult stem cells simply because it already comes from his/her body!)

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
Oh I see your point. I know that Pope John Paul II was against the church influencing the state even in cases of human rights abuse. I don't see that the church is influencing the state with purly christian ideology in this case. Its not the same as trying to force ID into schools. Clearly thats a matter of belief. But respect for human rights is gernal ...[text shortened]... oor human rights from a Chritian veiwpoint. People can oppose the state from a human veiwpoint.

Actually, JPII was never against the Church seeking to influence the State -- he did so himself all his life. The idea of separation of church and state is not that they cannot influence one another, but that they cannot control each other. A religious body should not have the power to appoint a president and vice-versa. It's not about banishing religious views from the public square and turning religious believers into second-class citizens.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Actually, JPII was never against the Church seeking to influence the State -- he did so himself all his life. The idea of separation of church and state is not that they cannot influence one another, but that they cannot control each other. A religious body should not have the power to appoint a president and vice-versa. It's not about b ...[text shortened]... igious views from the public square and turning religious believers into second-class citizens.

Ah yeah ok I'll give you that one. He didn't like it when the church ran countries.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Actually, ESCR has been around far longer (about twice as long, in fact) than adult stem cell research. And, AFAICS, the only restriction in place on ESCR in the US is that federal funding is limited to the use of pre-2002 lines. As the following article shows, that has had virtually no detrimental effect (quite the opposite, possibly) on funding (sta ...[text shortened]... this is not an issue with adult stem cells simply because it already comes from his/her body!)

Anti rejection drugs? Matching tissue types?

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
I am not an antitheist. Personally I believe that everyone should have the right to religious freedom, and I don't seek to activly convert people away from their faith. I wouldn't lose any sleep if I did, because I feel it would have to be their choise. For Christians who believe that the best way to serve Christ is in doing good and seeking to relieve ods Kingdom is not of this world. I would not seek to stamp out Christianity forcibly.

I don't think the bible advocates political involvement on the level the Christian right takes it to. The main players are usually rich white Republican men wielding a flock of church votes for oftentimes dubious political ends. It's a transparent schtick (to me), but most of the church folk I've been acquainted with, to my astonishment, are reeled-in hook, line and sinker by these guys.

Christ teaches us to be as wise as serpents, which I take to mean, 'don't get swindled by b.s. artists.' If Christians were not half as gullible as they have been, they would have recognized how the GOP has mastered the use of wedge issues in order to launch Republican candidates into positions of power. Did George W seriously intend to outlaw gay marriage on a federal level? Heck, no. Did he seriously intend to overturn Roe v. Wade? Heck, no. Everybody knows the drive to maintain power has corrupted these people into ruthlessly manipulating the Christian majority with the most despicable bait and switch imaginable (or maybe I just think that because it was aimed at me).

For myself, I don't vote according to issues. I vote for anyone who is a born leader, whether Republican or Democrat (Go Obama). God isn't going to hold me accountable for a vote. It is my right to vote for anyone I want, without retribution. Yet many Christian friends of mine treat the vote like it's a one-way ticket to either heaven or hell. As if, if you're not on board with the Christian right, then you're just a CHINO (Christian in name only). Well, excuse me if I don't believe liberals are my enemy. Leave me out of your nebulous culture war. All people are loved by God and deserve love and respect, no matter who they vote for, no matter who they abort, and no matter who they are sexually attracted to.

Nevertheless, the Christian right does represent a large chunk of the populace, and like it or not they do have the right to wield their influence on our government. If a soccer mom in Kansas can vote against supplying free condoms for the STD-ridden inner cities of America because it somehow weighs on her conscience, and millions more like her vote their 'consciences' as well, there's not a lot that can be done. Personally, I find the selfishness of such votes more unconscionable than someone in the inner city getting free access to a condom.

Anyway...

rec'd.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
Anti rejection drugs? Matching tissue types?

Don't need to bother with adult stem cell research. Tissue type matches perfectly; no anti-rejection drugs needed.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I don't think the bible advocates political involvement on the level the Christian right takes it to. The main players are usually rich white Republican men wielding a flock of church votes for oftentimes dubious political ends. It's a transparent schtick (to me), but most of the church folk I've been acquainted with, to my astonishment, are reeled-in ...[text shortened]... able than someone in the inner city getting free access to a condom.

Anyway...

God isn't going to hold me accountable for a vote. It is my right to vote for anyone I want, without retribution.

Really? What else is God not going to hold you accountable for?

(Assuming you believe in a God of course; the whole point is moot otherwise)


Leave me out of your nebulous culture war. All people are loved by God and deserve love and respect, no matter who they vote for, no matter who they abort, and no matter who they are sexually attracted to.

I certainly don't argue that people (no matter who they are or what they've done) don't deserve love and respect. That does not mean I say they are not accountable for their actions.


If a soccer mom in Kansas can vote against supplying free condoms for the STD-ridden inner cities of America because it somehow weighs on her conscience, and millions more like her vote their 'consciences' as well, there's not a lot that can be done.

Now that's going over-the-top. Can you give me a concrete example of soccer moms in Kansas voting against supplying free condoms for STD-ridden inner cities of America?

You keep talking about love and respect for all but I see none of that in your statements about the religious right.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]God isn't going to hold me accountable for a vote. It is my right to vote for anyone I want, without retribution.

Really? What else is God not going to hold you accountable for?

(Assuming you believe in a God of course; the whole point is moot otherwise)


Leave me out of your nebulous culture war. All people are loved by Go and respect for all but I see none of that in your statements about the religious right.

[/b]Well, there would seem to be three possible positions here—

(1) God will hold you accountable for everything you ever think, say or do (that has any moral consequence, at least), and requite you accordingly. I am assuming requital as part of any meaningful holding-accountable, but this list can simply be expanded if you think there is a reason to separate them; I am saying nothing about whether such requital is eternal or not.

(2) God will hold you accountable for some, but not all of the above (by whatever decision principle that God uses).

(3) God will hold you accountable for none of it.

In the first case, you stand entirely under the rule of law (or the law of rules), as rigorously and completely applied. Hope you “get it right.”

In the second case, the rigor of the law may be relieved by grace and/or recognition of mitigating circumstances (such as honest error in moral judgment). Whether or not you’re willing make predictions is up to you.

In the third case, grace (and/or recognition of mitigating circumstances) is complete.

I see no reason why believing any of these positions would tend to impact one’s personal moral scrupulousness, absent hypocrisy. I do think that there is likely to be a psychological impact to holding any of these positions; such impact may vary across persons.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I don't think the bible advocates political involvement on the level the Christian right takes it to. The main players are usually rich white Republican men wielding a flock of church votes for oftentimes dubious political ends. It's a transparent schtick (to me), but most of the church folk I've been acquainted with, to my astonishment, are reeled-in ...[text shortened]... able than someone in the inner city getting free access to a condom.

Anyway...

Amen brother! If i ever saw a post that was rec worthy it was this!!