Fear of death and Steven Hawkings....

[PsyOps]

Let me start by saying this: When the branches are too high, there are times you have to shake the tree to get the fruit.

Now,... backpedal? If you have read some of my other posts, the main theme is of independence. Freedom from government control, from others, and of individual responsibility. My motto: As long as you don't harm the person, or property of another, I don't care what you do and will support you. Do some some of my posts seem somewhat vitriolic? synonyms: rancorous, bitter, caustic, mordant, acerbic, trenchant, virulent, spiteful, savage, venomous, poisonous, malicious Yeah, maybe. Am I an atheist. No. Do I loath believers? No. Did I call her dead? In the metaphorical sense, yes. To only get her to think positive. I do not begrudge anyone for their belief in religion. If it brings them solace, peace, and comfort, to their lives, great! It is a wonderful thing.

I write to shake things up. To challenge thought. Maybe even, challenge the convictions of others. Death and those dying are not off limits. Hotcoffee understands from where I come. I rarely call people names here, maybe except for vrai, she can get me riled up. But that's all good too. I write here without the filters society places on us in public and with names attached. Sometimes what I write needs to be said to push the conversation. I make no apologizes.
I am a Christian, just not a Christian like you. I happened to have been saved and brought Jesus into my life in the fifth grade. I have never renounced him, even after seeing all the evil war had to offer in person, the many "faces of death". I continue to question and write posts questioning him and all religion. That is my problem though. Something with which I have to deal.

I say wasting her time, because if it was myself dying, I would say a final goodbye by starting a thread, saying my piece, then doing a final logging off from these forums and go be, and do something, with my family until I died. But that's me. I can understand what she is doing though. If being here, sharing her story, her testament, brings her comfort, brings others comfort, then I support that. I just want the positive side of life. The negative side sucks. So I push.

The way I write is my compassion for her. By challenging her, instead of "having compassion" in the other sense. I try to take her out of that comfort zone that I call "the lazy, just waiting to die zone." Maybe I'm wrong? I don't know. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Eh?

I like Becky and have known her for many years. Though I haven't seen her in about a year, we have spent much time together in the past for various reasons. I wish her nothing but good health and remission. Gotta go now and get myself a fresh cup of "Hot Coffee". No really.... my cup is empty. : )

Point taken. Thanks.

Only.... don't assume you know what kind of Christian I am.

 

[migtig]

I find it interesting that in the same post you used "G-d" instead of God and then used quotes from the Bible.

We're not speaking the same language.

I say babies were aborted for the purpose of science in the beginning of stem cell research.

I say abortion is murder.

I've stated several times on this forum, in various posts throughout the years, and I'm sure you've seen one or two of my posts before, I use the spelling G-d because it's a form of respect. You aren't supposed to use G-d's name in vain right? That's not just about cussing you know. That's because his name is "holy and awesome". And if you agree with all that, then really, you shouldn't be spelling his name out in mundane trivial posts either. :shrug: It's about respect, tradition, and all that jazz.

Abortion is murder. I get that. But stem cell research is not, as I've shown you with the facts. You are being obstinate in order to validate your opinion, which isn't fact based. :shrug: I'm not sure why, but that's between you, your emotions and your own logical reasoning skills.

Yes, we are speaking two different languages. You are emotion based and I'm logic based. I'm okay with that. Are you?

However, I want you to know that you can have science and G-d. You can have logic and G-d. You can have reasoning and deduction skills and still have G-d.

You can find many instances where science and the Bible agree.

Jeremiah 33:22a "As the host of heaven cannot be numbered..." - The stars can't be numbered

Isaiah 40:22a "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth..." - The earth is round

Job 28:25 "To establish a weight for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure." - Fluid Dynamics

Job 36:27-29 "For He draws up drops of water, Which distill as rain from the mist, Which the clouds drop down And pour abundantly on man. Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds, The thunder from His canopy?" Hydrologic Cycle

2 Peter 3:10 "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up" - and some say this describes a nuclear blast.

There's more, but I say why not embrace science and technology? The Bible did. :shrug:

 

[Misfit]

This thread made me sad, then happy and then sad again.

 

[Larry Gude]

I would suggest anyone who is really interested to try and hunt them down some info or, better yet, someone working in biology. Advances in stem cell and DNA research are going to be producing some stunning advances in the near term. We're talking ground breaking. Stem cells from babies are not necessary anymore. We're talking HUGE cures. And there is going to need to be a moral guidance to all of this coming ability.

 

[Radiant1]

However, I want you to know that you can have science and G-d. You can have logic and G-d. You can have reasoning and deduction skills and still have G-d.

You can find many instances where science and the Bible agree.

Jeremiah 33:22a "As the host of heaven cannot be numbered..." - The stars can't be numbered

Isaiah 40:22a "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth..." - The earth is round

Job 28:25 "To establish a weight for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure." - Fluid Dynamics

Job 36:27-29 "For He draws up drops of water, Which distill as rain from the mist, Which the clouds drop down And pour abundantly on man. Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds, The thunder from His canopy?" Hydrologic Cycle

2 Peter 3:10 "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up" - and some say this describes a nuclear blast.

There's more, but I say why not embrace science and technology? The Bible did. :shrug:

 

[hotcoffee]

I would suggest anyone who is really interested to try and hunt them down some info or, better yet, someone working in biology. Advances in stem cell and DNA research are going to be producing some stunning advances in the near term. We're talking ground breaking. Stem cells from babies are not necessary anymore. We're talking HUGE cures. And there is going to need to be a moral guidance to all of this coming ability.

My point is.... stem cells from babies WAS necessary in the beginning. I know there are some who will want to debate that but to my knowledge it started with a live partial birth and a pair of scissors and for that reason I cannot or will not go that route. I go back to Joshua's statement "As for me and my house .... "

I cannot condone the loss of one child.

I acknowledge your right to choose.... but I have chosen not to participate in the use of stem cells....

 

[Larry Gude]

My point is.... stem cells from babies WAS necessary in the beginning.

No baby was born and killed to be harvested. That there were and are abortions and the waste, that that was and is happening can only lead a scientist to consider the use of fetal stem cells IF their research indicates useful knowledge could be gained. It's like the good and useful research that was gleaned from the victims of war atrocities, especially NAZI experiments in WWII. One can be appalled at the human crime but, you can't deny knowledge, you can't reject the science that is.

There is nothing wrong with being opposed to abortion and war crimes. We all SHOULD be opposed but, the action is in the mother choosing and the doctor performing an abortion, not in the scientist gleaning what he can from the waste. The action is in the war crime, the intentional abuse and destruction of the person. It is an unpleasant thing but, the science is THERE. The knowledge to be gained is THERE. In all things there should be at least two questions; can we and should we. We can do abortions and we, as a nation, with freedom of faith, have chosen to say it is a womans right to choose, that that is between her and her beliefs. So, we can and we do. For the scientist, there is the same thing, can we and should we? We can, we could, and whether we should have or not is long since passed. Those who did now have that between themselves and their beliefs. Those following who then were able to use the information gained then face can we/should we. They can and it is unconscionable, in my mind, to my beliefs, to NOT use that information especially given the potential to move beyond using fetal stem cells.

What we, people, are on the cusp of achieving in cell manipulation, DNA work, is earth shaking both in the potential for good and the potential for more 'we can but, should we??' moments. It always was and always will be, can we and should we. Medicine in it's infancy caused the exact same fears and concerns as you, and many others, have over fetal stem cell research and what it may wrought. One thing it has wrought, for sure, is moving beyond the use of fetal stem cells.

Mans quest for knowledge, for science, in my view, my beliefs, are the exact same thing as our quest for faith itself. I, personally, cannot conceive of a god that condemns fetal stem cell research from the point of use of that waste. Careful, considered, deliberate, limited. I also can conceive of a god that cries and is heartbroken over any death and destruction. So, the core of the argument, can we and should we. DNA advancement was always going to come. It just was. Man was never destined to stay in a cave and ignore the world around him than we were destined to look at medicine the way we did 2,000, 1,000, 500 years ago, 100 years ago. It's not black magic. It is the human compulsion to ask why, to want to learn more just as we were never destined to be of no faiths or beliefs.

It is far better that we, as people, continue this journey in collaborative agitation of one another, of positive tension in beliefs and intents, so that we ALWAYS ask can we/should we and go forward as best we can in terms of what we learn and what we do with it. But, we WILL go forward. The path we've taken leads to where we are and the potential exists in all this to heal us, genetically, in ways we darn well better start considering and a moral component is not only indefensible it is central to what we do and why.

I think that can NOT be a satisfying response to your concerns but, it is heartfelt and sincere and, I think, reasonable.

 

[hotcoffee]

No baby was born and killed to be harvested. That there were and are abortions and the waste, that that was and is happening can only lead a scientist to consider the use of fetal stem cells IF their research indicates useful knowledge could be gained. It's like the good and useful research that was gleaned from the victims of war atrocities, especially NAZI experiments in WWII. One can be appalled at the human crime but, you can't deny knowledge, you can't reject the science that is.

There is nothing wrong with being opposed to abortion and war crimes. We all SHOULD be opposed but, the action is in the mother choosing and the doctor performing an abortion, not in the scientist gleaning what he can from the waste. The action is in the war crime, the intentional abuse and destruction of the person. It is an unpleasant thing but, the science is THERE. The knowledge to be gained is THERE. In all things there should be at least two questions; can we and should we. We can do abortions and we, as a nation, with freedom of faith, have chosen to say it is a womans right to choose, that that is between her and her beliefs. So, we can and we do. For the scientist, there is the same thing, can we and should we? We can, we could, and whether we should have or not is long since passed. Those who did now have that between themselves and their beliefs. Those following who then were able to use the information gained then face can we/should we. They can and it is unconscionable, in my mind, to my beliefs, to NOT use that information especially given the potential to move beyond using fetal stem cells.

What we, people, are on the cusp of achieving in cell manipulation, DNA work, is earth shaking both in the potential for good and the potential for more 'we can but, should we??' moments. It always was and always will be, can we and should we. Medicine in it's infancy caused the exact same fears and concerns as you, and many others, have over fetal stem cell research and what it may wrought. One thing it has wrought, for sure, is moving beyond the use of fetal stem cells.

Mans quest for knowledge, for science, in my view, my beliefs, are the exact same thing as our quest for faith itself. I, personally, cannot conceive of a god that condemns fetal stem cell research from the point of use of that waste. Careful, considered, deliberate, limited. I also can conceive of a god that cries and is heartbroken over any death and destruction. So, the core of the argument, can we and should we. DNA advancement was always going to come. It just was. Man was never destined to stay in a cave and ignore the world around him than we were destined to look at medicine the way we did 2,000, 1,000, 500 years ago, 100 years ago. It's not black magic. It is the human compulsion to ask why, to want to learn more just as we were never destined to be of no faiths or beliefs.

It is far better that we, as people, continue this journey in collaborative agitation of one another, of positive tension in beliefs and intents, so that we ALWAYS ask can we/should we and go forward as best we can in terms of what we learn and what we do with it. But, we WILL go forward. The path we've taken leads to where we are and the potential exists in all this to heal us, genetically, in ways we darn well better start considering and a moral component is not only indefensible it is central to what we do and why.

I think that can NOT be a satisfying response to your concerns but, it is heartfelt and sincere and, I think, reasonable.

I'm happy that science has learned that they can use the cord for the stem cells.... that's a good thing....

I still stand by my statement about how all this started.... but I am thrilled that science has learned to be civil and strive without harming any more babies....

As for me.... It's not an option.... but I'm happy that they don't kill babies to heal.... that just wouldn't make any sense would it?

Here's a link.... it goes to the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese. Give it a look.... there are a lot of links like this both religious and secular.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm happy that science has learned that they can use the cord for the stem cells.... that's a good thing....

I still stand by my statement about how all this started.... but I am thrilled that science has learned to be civil and strive without harming any more babies....

As for me.... It's not an option.... but I'm happy that they don't kill babies to heal.... that just wouldn't make any sense would it?

Here's a link.... it goes to the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese. Give it a look.... there are a lot of links like this both religious and secular.

Well, the good news is that your position matters and will matter. There needs to be a check on unbridled anything. Balance. Wisdom. Thought. Argument. Debate. It's a good thing.

 

[Bustem' Down]

I would suggest anyone who is really interested to try and hunt them down some info or, better yet, someone working in biology. Advances in stem cell and DNA research are going to be producing some stunning advances in the near term. We're talking ground breaking. Stem cells from babies are not necessary anymore. We're talking HUGE cures. And there is going to need to be a moral guidance to all of this coming ability.

My wife is a biologist. They can do many many things with other types of stems cells, but still none are as versatile as embryonic stem cells.

 

[terbear1225]

No baby was born and killed to be harvested. That there were and are abortions and the waste, that that was and is happening can only lead a scientist to consider the use of fetal stem cells IF their research indicates useful knowledge could be gained. It's like the good and useful research that was gleaned from the victims of war atrocities, especially NAZI experiments in WWII. One can be appalled at the human crime but, you can't deny knowledge, you can't reject the science that is.

There is nothing wrong with being opposed to abortion and war crimes. We all SHOULD be opposed but, the action is in the mother choosing and the doctor performing an abortion, not in the scientist gleaning what he can from the waste. The action is in the war crime, the intentional abuse and destruction of the person. It is an unpleasant thing but, the science is THERE. The knowledge to be gained is THERE. In all things there should be at least two questions; can we and should we. We can do abortions and we, as a nation, with freedom of faith, have chosen to say it is a womans right to choose, that that is between her and her beliefs. So, we can and we do. For the scientist, there is the same thing, can we and should we? We can, we could, and whether we should have or not is long since passed. Those who did now have that between themselves and their beliefs. Those following who then were able to use the information gained then face can we/should we. They can and it is unconscionable, in my mind, to my beliefs, to NOT use that information especially given the potential to move beyond using fetal stem cells.

What we, people, are on the cusp of achieving in cell manipulation, DNA work, is earth shaking both in the potential for good and the potential for more 'we can but, should we??' moments. It always was and always will be, can we and should we. Medicine in it's infancy caused the exact same fears and concerns as you, and many others, have over fetal stem cell research and what it may wrought. One thing it has wrought, for sure, is moving beyond the use of fetal stem cells.

Mans quest for knowledge, for science, in my view, my beliefs, are the exact same thing as our quest for faith itself. I, personally, cannot conceive of a god that condemns fetal stem cell research from the point of use of that waste. Careful, considered, deliberate, limited. I also can conceive of a god that cries and is heartbroken over any death and destruction. So, the core of the argument, can we and should we. DNA advancement was always going to come. It just was. Man was never destined to stay in a cave and ignore the world around him than we were destined to look at medicine the way we did 2,000, 1,000, 500 years ago, 100 years ago. It's not black magic. It is the human compulsion to ask why, to want to learn more just as we were never destined to be of no faiths or beliefs.

It is far better that we, as people, continue this journey in collaborative agitation of one another, of positive tension in beliefs and intents, so that we ALWAYS ask can we/should we and go forward as best we can in terms of what we learn and what we do with it. But, we WILL go forward. The path we've taken leads to where we are and the potential exists in all this to heal us, genetically, in ways we darn well better start considering and a moral component is not only indefensible it is central to what we do and why.

I think that can NOT be a satisfying response to your concerns but, it is heartfelt and sincere and, I think, reasonable.

 

[Larry Gude]

My wife is a biologist. They can do many many things with other types of stems cells, but still none are as versatile as embryonic stem cells.

it is my understanding, from a young hot shot who just got out of the lab rat routine, that they have overcome that and very recently and it is a HUGE deal.

I am willing to defer to your wife, though.

 

[hotcoffee]

Well, the good news is that your position matters and will matter. There needs to be a check on unbridled anything. Balance. Wisdom. Thought. Argument. Debate. It's a good thing.