First Human Cloned - What do you think?

[Napoleon]

Originally posted by Quarto
The fact that what's happening now has only lasted a decade (so far) doesn't mean that the end of the Ice Age would have been gentler. None of us were there, of course, so none of us can claim to know what it was like. However, it seems sensible to assume that the floods mentioned in so many cultures around the world aren't just the result of all these unrelated people suddenly coming up with the same story. Therefore, clearly, the floods did happen, and clearly, they were recorded in oral tradition.


Eh, I'm too lazy to bother with this. Think what you want, but you'd better not forget my original point, which was really quite simple - insult religions, and I'll kick your ass .

First I dont insult religion per se, I insult the hipocricy inherant in modern religious people, religion is cannot be properly defended by reason and logic, Thomas Aquinas realized this back in the 1200s. That doesnt mean it isnt valid, it simply means that it is something that shouldnt attempt to be logical and people shouldnt argue it as such.

Yes we do know it took longer, we have ice core and tree rings which tell us exactly how many degrees the average temperature increased, we have erosion data and cores of sea beds that give us a good idea of when each section was submerged, and the receeding of the glaciers was extremely slow from a human point of view (fast from a geological) and took in excess of several hundred years.

 

[Napoleon]

Originally posted by Preacher
[B

--At the risk of nitpicking, Allah is NOT the same God as that of the Bible, though I understand that, in the sense that you prolly meant it, your statement is an accurate generality. Certainly the Koran is the "equivalent" of the Bible in that its adherents reverence it in the same way/to the same degree, but that's where the equivalency ends.
[/B]

sorry for the double post all, but i gotta point out that this is wrong. Preacher, JC is the 11th prophet (i believe) according to islam (he is the last one before Mohommed), all the previous prophets of judeaism are included as the islamic prophet. They claim descent from abraham same as the jews as well (isaac and ishmail and all that). The god of Islam, is the exact same god as the Jews worship, and the Christians worship, it is mearly a matter of what each group thinks he said.

 

[cff]

Originally posted by TC
That's exactly what the argument asks, though. It asks God to make himself non-omnipotent by creating something he cannot, in fact, wield power over.

There is a differnece between saying make something green red and saying make green red.
You don't ask to redefine anything. You just challenge the power.

Originally posted by Preacher
--At the risk of nitpicking, Allah is NOT the same God as that of the Bible

How so? After all they accept the OT and also that Jesus was a Prophet. Allah might have been redefined, but he is the same deity.

Originally posted by Preacher
--The "rock" example is an old joke, not a "popular proof"; I'm surprised that you'd use it in a discussion such as this. It don't 'prove' squat, except that humans are capable of making fun of just about anything (which of course, we already knew)

And that is just about the reaction every church guy brings. "Give me one prove that god cannot exist" "Here is the rock example" "I won't talk to you anymore - you are making fun of me".
If science would work this way...

Originally posted by Preacher

a logical impossibility (not to mention just plain ridiculous).

So if you don't like a prove it make it invalid? Sides even if you mofify it to "Can god give up his own omnipotence" why would that make it a rediculous question? It would still be a valid challenge.

Originally posted by Preacher

--Not so. It is known that various biochemical changes accompany the presence of certain emotional states, yes. However, the research thus far done on this phenomena is far from complete.

Its nice that you agree with me on the "research thus far done" thingie. How long are we doing research here? 50 years? Again: just because it cannot be proven YET doesn't make it invalid.
Regarding trust... You yourself said that humans are so different from animals. Yet even animals show trust. So trust has to be something instinctive then, hasn't it?

Originally posted by Preacher

--It wasn't the Romans, it was the Jews in Palestine at the time.
People buried in rubble isn't a valid comparison, though, because said rubble was not the result of a deliberate fastidiously planned and executed custom, but rather the random result of a hurricane, terrorist bombing, etc..

Irrelevant. Neither could do airtight seals IMHO.
Regarding the rubble... Sure it isn't the same. But it shows how people can survive in equally hostile environments. They don't have a fresh air supply there either usually.

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Napoleon
First I dont insult religion per se, I insult the hipocricy inherant in modern religious people, religion is cannot be properly defended by reason and logic.

That's even worse, however. You see, I'm not trying to stop you from speaking your mind. My role is simply to stop arguments, preferably by preventing them in the first place. Thus, insulting religious people falls squarely into the bad things category.

cff: Well, the simple answer to the rock argument would be... if God exists and is omnipotent, then he can create a rock that he cannot lift, but he'll still be able to lift it. I don't know how he would achieve this effect, but since he's omnipotent, he obviously can . In doing so, he would probably defy all logic and explanations, but he can do that - he's omnipotent. All in all, the rock argument is silly - it attempts to bind an omnipotent God to logic, when his omnipotence places him beyond logic, by definition.

 

[Ijuin]

Getting back to the original topic of cloning, my concern is not so much on the morality of creating clones as on how cloned people would be treated after they already exist. Two major problems might come about:

First, there is the "They aren't human" problem--cloned people may become an underclass on the basis of their having been cloned. This would probably manifest itself in a manner similar to racism.

The second problem is the "resurrection" problem--non-cloned people may expect a cloned person to be more like the "original" than they actually are. Here are two examples. First, let us say that a clone of Albert Einstein is created. The fame of the original Albert Einstein would result in an expectation that the clone would become a great theoretical scientist. It gives no consideration to the possibility that the clone might want to be a doctor or a lawyer or pursue some other career choice, thus the clone is not as free to live his life as non-cloned people.

For the second example, let us say that Sarah, a young girl who is pretty much like anyone else, dies tragically. Her parents have a clone of her created (let us call the clone "Sara"). The parents think of Sara as their second chance with Sarah--at some level, in their minds, Sara and Sarah are the same person. Thus, all of their expectations for Sarah get passed onto Sara, and Sara is not free to be her own individual, but is rather treated as a "resurrection" of Sarah.

 

[Ripper]

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side.

 

[Preacher]

Originally posted by Napoleon

...sorry for the double post all, but i gotta point out that this is wrong. Preacher, JC is the 11th prophet (i believe) according to islam (he is the last one before Mohommed), all the previous prophets of judeaism are included as the islamic prophet. They claim descent from abraham same as the jews as well (isaac and ishmail and all that). The god of Islam, is the exact same god as the Jews worship, and the Christians worship, it is mearly a matter of what each group thinks he said.

...its nice that you agree with me on the "research thus far done" thingie. How long are we doing research here? 50 years? Again: just because it cannot be proven YET doesn't make it invalid.
Regarding trust... You yourself said that humans are so different from animals. Yet even animals show trust. So trust has to be something instinctive then, hasn't it?

...And that is just about the reaction every church guy brings. "Give me one prove that god cannot exist" "Here is the rock example" "I won't talk to you anymore - you are making fun of me".
If science would work this way...

--Your reasoning is more than a little bit flawed: How can they be the same God when the Christian God has a son named Jesus, who was/is the Messiah?... Moreover, said Son is Himself fully God, and is One with God (John 1:1-15). Finally, Christianity's God guarantees salvation/eternal life to all who truly believe in Messiah; Allah makes no guarantees of salvation/eternal life whatsoever, 'cept maybe if one dies in "holy war". The description of Allah is at considerable odds with Christianity's God. And these issues ain't just "a matter of what each group thinks he said", it's a matter of who He is, that is to say, God's essence. What you have here is 2 totally divergent personalities and characters from one another... Sounds like a totally different god to me...

--You forgot the corollary of your statement: It also can't be confirmed as valid UNTIL it is proven...

RE: Trust: No, not at all: Animals show trust in the here and now only; Humans can trust one another for future events (oaths of office, wedding vows, etc.). Also, people can trust one another despite evidence/behavior that violates (or seems to violate) that trust. On the other hand, if you kick your dog more than a couple of times, well, you'll come away with a couple less fingers next time you go to pet him... Now where's your 'trust'?...

--As a "church guy" myself, I can tell you that I most definitely would not have such a response to you. Rather, I would simply point out to you again, the rock example is ridiculous: An infinite Being with the power to create all things (such as this rock you keep talking about) logically also has sovereign power over it. As such, it is impossible to NOT be able to exercise control over (i.e., be able to lift) it. He may choose not to lift that rock at a given time, but He always retains the ability to do so. Let's bring it down to a human level: If I go out and build a small birdhouse today, it can be said that I have sovereign power over that birdhouse. I can hide it up in my attic, hang it up in my yard, throw it in the fire, whatever the heck I want to do with it. But unless I come down with a back problem or some such, I will ALWAYS be able to lift that bad boy up from the ground. Even if I choose not to, I will always be ABLE to. Multiply that by an infinitely powerful God (who doesn't GET back problems, become weak or ill, or die) and you realize the futility of this lame 'rock' argument...

Originally posted by Ijuin

Getting back to the original topic of cloning, my concern is not so much on the morality of creating clones as on how cloned people would be treated after they already exist. Two major problems might come about:
First, there is the "They aren't human" problem--cloned people may become an underclass on the basis of their having been cloned. This would probably manifest itself in a manner similar to racism, etc. etc....

I agree w/ ya. Good points, all. Just one more reason not to allow cloning in humans...

 

[Ghost]

Following the same thinking line Jewish God isn´t the same Christian God

 

[Preacher]

Originally posted by Ghost
Following the same thinking line Jewish God isn´t the same Christian God

Ah; now that's where it gets interesting. I was thinking of addressing that issue in my post, but decided not to, both to keep it a bit simpler and because it wasn't central to the dispute in question. Even if you disagree with what I'm about to say (and you certainly seem more an authority on Jewish stuff than I, so I give your opinion credit here), plz remember that the distinction in dispute was between Allah and (the Judeo-Christian) God's identities.

Anyway, we (Christians) would make the point that He actually IS the same, and here's how: We accept/believe in the exact same scriptures in their entirety (what we call the OT) as do the Jews. Remember, Messiah was foretold and written extensively about in the OT (Genesis/Exodus/Isaiah/Daniel/The Psalms, to name a few). Jews believe in Messiah as well; they simply don't believe that Christ was that person; that he is yet to come/be revealed. Jews also believe many if not all (correct me if I'm wrong here, since your writings here reveal you to perhaps be Jewish, or at least quite knowledgeable about things Jewish) of the things written about Messiah, except for His identity. In particular, they believe that when Messiah does come, life as we know it on earth will be "wrapped up", and life with God in eternity will commence; same as us. The central difference is in the identity of the Messiah, not his existence. It is our belief that, as we enter the Last Days, many (possibly most?) of Israel will "look on the one they have pierced" (Zech 12:10, also referred to in Psalms 22:16; this refers to JC), and will come to faith in Christ as Messiah (Rev 7:1-8). Now of course, a Jew won't likely believe in the Revelation stuff (or much of anything else in the NT), and that's fine. What's really fascinating, though, is to see how accurately JC fits the various OT prohecies made concerning Messiah & his identity. I won't go into it here (though you're free to PM me if you like, for a more detailed discourse), but I urge ya to read said things for yerself and see how tight a fit it really is.

Shalom!

 

[Ghost]

Yeah, i´m jew.
That is why i said *following the same thinking line*

What you said is true, the main difference is that for us the messiah didn´t came, and for you the messiah came 2000 years ago (and Jesus said that he will come again).
What will be interesting is, when the messiah will come, if it will be the same for you and for us
Do you (the christians) expect that he will appear like he was when he was alive (image,name,etc) or could be another person?

To be accurate we are expecting 2 (two) messiahs (this is according the Kabala and some other book that i can´t remember), one, Messiah ben Iosef (he will be more like a *earhly* leader) who will preppare the things for the comming, he will be murdered.
Then will appear the *true* Messiah (ben David)

 

[Napoleon]

Preacher, there will be a 13th apposel from the point of view of the muslims, and that is their messiah. Basically Judeaism is the foundation, christianity and islam are two minarets built from the same foundation, side by side.

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Preacher
--Your reasoning is more than a little bit flawed: How can they be the same God when the Christian God has a son named Jesus, who was/is the Messiah

No, your reasoning is flawed. Muslims believe that he is the same God as the Christian and Jewish God. It doesn't actually matter what the Christians or Jews believe in this case, because, after all, neither the Christians nor the Jews believe that the Koran is correct anyway.

Also, if you're going to base your argument on the fact that Christians believe in Jesus being the son of God, and the Muslims not believing it, then how can you claim that the Jews believe in the same God as you do? After all, the Jews not only reject the idea of Jesus being the son of God, they reject him as religiously significant in any way.

Oh, and the Christian God most certainly does not guarantee salvation any more than the Muslim God - after all, in Christian ideology, nobody is actually worthy of salvation. Everyone's unworthy.

 

[Napoleon]

Quarto: Actually is Protestant ideology that says no one is worthy. Catholics believe that while we all sin, so long as we can repent (in the form of Confession and Extreme Unction) and do pennance while being sorry for our sin, that we are worthy of heaven. Likewise Saints are worthy of heaven as well, since they are the lord's workers on earth.
The Catholics also give the fact that people arent perfect assistnace with pennance after death. Purgatory gives catholicism a way to not be black and white, not all men are either straight good or evil, plus it gives people who die with sins on their souls a place to go other than hell.

I am not well enough versed in the Orthodox, Coptic, or Apostolic beliefs to be able to comment on their views in relation to sin. Perhaps the inclusion of the apocrypha alters their view point

 

[Preacher]

Originally posted by Ghost

...Yeah, i´m jew.

...What you said is true, the main difference is that for us the messiah didn´t came, and for you the messiah came 2000 years ago (and Jesus said that he will come again). What will be interesting is, when the messiah will come, if it will be the same for you and for us. Do you (the christians) expect that he will appear like he was when he was alive (image,name,etc) or could be another person?

...To be accurate we are expecting 2 (two) messiahs (this is according the Kabala and some other book that i can´t remember), one, Messiah ben Iosef (he will be more like a *earhly* leader) who will preppare the things for the comming, he will be murdered.
Then will appear the *true* Messiah (ben David)

--Well, then, shalom! Baruch Ha Shem Adonai!...(?sp.)
--Our view, of course (as you may've guessed from my last post), is that He will "be the same for you and for us". In any event, IIRC that his appearance will be the same. Of course, since there was no photography back then, that doesn't mean a whole lot (since we don't know exactly what he looked like anyway...). Certainly everyone will know who He is, without a doubt, as we are told (in several places) that he will "return in the clouds with power and great glory" (Matt. 24/Luke 21), and all will realize/recognize Him at His coming. He will not be another person, He will be same as He was back then.

--I find that fascinating. It sounds like the traditional Jewish belief that "Elijah will come, to prepare the way for Messiah" (leaving an empty chair at the Passover Seder for Elijah, etc.). Is this what you are talking about? (I hadn't heard it in a "ben Ioseph/ben David" context before, that's all)... Are you aware of how (in the Christian view) John ben Zechariah has already filled this role?... He said he came expressly to "prepare the way of the Lord" (as he quoted his mission from Isaiah 40:3)... As to being an earthly leader, JC Himself said of John: "I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist..." (Matt 11:11). Furthermore, John was murdered by Herod not long after Christ's public ministry began. Food for thought, eh?...

Originally posted by Napoleon

...Preacher, there will be a 13th apposel from the point of view of the muslims, and that is their messiah.
...Basically Judeaism is the foundation, christianity and islam are two minarets built from the same foundation, side by side.

--I have a copy of the Koran, but I'm only about 1/2- 2/3 of the way thru it. I don't recall seeing any mention of any such thing so far; plz tell where in the Koran it is, so I can read it 4 myself...

--I agree with your analogy inasmuch as both of the latter "sprang from" Judaism. I wouldn't exactly put 'em side by side, though.

Originally posted by Quarto

...No, your reasoning is flawed. Muslims believe that he is the same God as the Christian and Jewish God...

...Also, if you're going to base your argument on the fact that Christians believe in Jesus being the son of God, and the Muslims not believing it, then how can you claim that the Jews believe in the same God as you do? After all, the Jews not only reject the idea of Jesus being the son of God, they reject him as religiously significant in any way.

...Oh, and the Christian God most certainly does not guarantee salvation any more than the Muslim God - after all, in Christian ideology, nobody is actually worthy of salvation. Everyone's unworthy.

--Not so. The only way they believe He is 'the same' in any sense is that they realize that they, the Jews, and us are all "One god" types of guys. Beyond that, they clearly believe him to be different and distinct than, say, the Christian God. As most are aware (and I've pointed out previously here), to Christians Jesus IS God (and thus greater than all); Muslims not only don't believe JC to be God, they don't even view him as being the "greatest" among men (since they see Muhammed as being superior)... How is that "the same God"?...

--Yeah, well, I sorta thought someone might take that tack if I made that post, but it was worth it anyway. First, plz remember that I'm representing the Christian POV here, and I could understand if a non-Christian doesn't see it the same way. You asked me how I (a Christian), could claim this, so I'm giving you my (that is, the mainstream Christian) POV on it. Here's my response:
1) Jesus was Himself a Jew, who loved His fellow Jews (Mohammed was Gentile, and had considerable animosity towards Jews).
2) Christianity views itself as being the fulfillment of Judaism; it views Islam as being a corruption of Judaism. Indeed, those Jews who have come to believe in JC as Messiah oft refer to themselves as "fulfilled Jews" (aka, Messianic Jews). There is no parallel for this when either a Muslim turns Christian/Jewish, or vice-versa.
3) Our scriptures paint quite a hopeful future of Jew and Christian together, in the End times, after Israel has placed their faith in Messiah. Muslims see no bright future for anyone but themselves, and even that is not "guaranteed" (see my earlier post for mentions of these things)
4) The NT writers even refer to the Jews as being our "older brothers" in the faith, and Paul speaks of how we (Christians) were "grafted in" to the olive tree of life (meaning the tree of true spiritual faith in God), whereas those jews who didn't believe were "pruned out" of the vine. Even so, if they come to believe in Christ, they can/will be grafted back in (Rom 11:23) again.

As to rejecting Jesus as being "religiously significant in any way", that's not entirely true; They do view JC as having been a great religious/moral teacher...

--Um, yes He does guarantee salvation.... It's right there in the text, dude: Read Mark 16:16; John 10:9; Acts 2:21& 4:12, 16:17; Rom. 5:9-11& 10:9; 2 Thess 2:10 &13, and so on. Now maybe you don't personally believe that for yerself, and that's OK; but the issue is what the text says, and it clearly negates your assertion above. You are quite right in saying that no one is worthy of salvation. That's the beauty of our faith!: While NO one is worthy, EVERYone is eligible (yup, Jews, too, and even Muslims); all you need do is truly believe in your heart (see some of the above citations; also Rom 1:16, and esp. 2 Peter 3:3-9), for "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

 

[Preacher]

[Sorry: didn't see it till afterwards; adding in this post prolly woulda triggered the 'character-limit' thing again anyway...]

Originally posted by Napoleon

..Actually is Protestant ideology that says no one is worthy. Catholics believe that while we all sin, so long as we can repent (in the form of Confession and Extreme Unction) and do penance while being sorry for our sin, that we are worthy of heaven. Likewise Saints are worthy of heaven as well, since they are the lord's workers on earth.

...The Catholics also give the fact that people arent perfect assistnace with pennance after death. Purgatory gives catholicism a way to not be black and white, not all men are either straight good or evil, plus it gives people who die with sins on their souls a place to go other than hell.

I am not well enough versed in the Orthodox, Coptic, or Apostolic beliefs to be able to comment on their views in relation to sin. Perhaps the inclusion of the apocrypha alters their viewpoint.

--Not Protestant ideology; the scripture itself says none are worthy: "This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through... Christ Jesus." (Romans 3:23-4). The same 'grace' spoken of here confers forgiveness on all who are truly repentant of their sin before God.
The 'sacraments' of Confession and Last Rites were stuff added by the Catholic church; there is no biblical basis for either (in its Catholic form, anyway). As to 'saints', here again the Catholics diverge from the scriptures, but your point is nontheless valid: "Saints" do go to heaven; it's just that in Cath. theology, that word indicates a few rare, standout individual believers; in biblical usage (Paul & the other NT writers actually use the word a lot), 'saints' simply indicates any/all true believers. Either way, it's God's grace that gets 'em to heaven, not by their own good works.

--Catholics are in error RE: the whole "purgatory" thing (before people start flaming me, I was born & raised Catholic, so I know whereof I speak...). It is a fallacy; there's no scriptural basis to believe that such a place or state exists. You hit it on the head when you said that it gives 'em a way to "not be black and white" about damnation/redemption. That's all it is is a convenient "out". Somewhere along the line some Pope or Council decided to "...let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." (Mark 7:8). Now don't get me wrong; I'm not saying Catholics aren't Christians (since I know that, for example, my Mom is..), simply that they are in error in a few areas (those mentioned here, and a few others). They thus have a thing or two to learn, and as a former one myself, I pray that in time they DO come to greater knowledge of the truth.

[Brief Historical Fact: It was 'cuz of the Cath. Church's seriously being in error 500 yrs ago that the Protestant church(es) came into existence in the first place. Martin Luther didn't want to start his own church, he just wanted "The" church to get with the program and correct the errors of their ways. When they not only refused to do so, but then started hounding/prersecuting/excommunicating him, he didn't have much choice but to worship "on his own", and the rest, as they say, is history...]

 

[steampunk]

Originally posted by TC
I'm assuming you're talking about the omnipotence paradox... The thought that if someone is omnipotent, he must have the power to create something he cannot change, yet this makes him lack the power to change this, and he is, therefore, not omnipotent. The classic example being phrased as the question "Can God make a rock so heavy even He cannot lift it?"

This is an unfair question, as it's asking Him to do a logical impossibility. Something that cannot be done by an omnipotent being is a logical impossibility. Maybe God could go and change the definitions of the words or something crazy like that so it isn't a logical impossibility, but it's like asking someone to make a circular triangle. Such a beast doesn't, and cannot exist by definition of the words.

Oh, unless, of course, God decided that, since He created logic, he didn't want to be bound by it. Then He can just do whatever the hell He wants. In that scenario we're screwed and are even further than most assume from being able to comprehend him, as we don't have even the simplest tools to analyze His existence.

OK, let's say I don't quite know the dictionary def. of omnipotence. So I'll say here: omnipotence = all powerful. We all know what all powerful means yes?

-So we assume an omnipotent being exists and can do whatever s/he/it wants.

-Now we ask him/her/it to do something that logically cannot be so.

-But if it cannot be done then the being cannot be omnipotent.

Proof by contradiction no? Like proving root 2 is not rational. We assume root2 is rational and then show that if it was, we'd get stupid results. Perfectly valid. I don't see how that's unfair.

 

[cff]

Originally posted by Quarto
if God exists and is omnipotent, then he can create a rock that he cannot lift, but he'll still be able to lift it. I don't know how he would achieve this effect, but since he's omnipotent, he obviously can . In doing so, he would probably defy all logic and explanations, but he can do that - he's omnipotent.

Fair point of view. The stupid thing with logic is that if you let in one false assumtion you can prove everything. But of course something outside of logic could be imagined. Sides who said that our current logic is final. Just like the theory of relativity mabye someone will find an extended logic sometime.

Originally posted by Ijuin

First, there is the "They aren't human" problem--cloned people may become an underclass on the basis of their having been cloned.

I very much expect that something like this will happen. But I think this will be a self solving problem. As soon as enough clones are alive they will demand their rights. Hopefully by that time we will listen to their demands instead of going to another time of slavery and subsequent war first.

Originally posted by Preacher
The description of Allah is at considerable odds with Christianity's God. And these issues ain't just "a matter of what each group thinks he said", it's a matter of who He is, that is to say, God's essence.

Similar things could be said from the Jewish god and the Christian God...

Originally posted by Preacher

RE: Trust: No, not at all: Animals show trust in the here and now only;
Humans can trust one another for future events (oaths of office, wedding vows, etc.).

What is the difference between a wedding vow ("I like you and we'll stay together till I die except you mistreat me") and the trust of an animal ("I like you and we'll stay together till I die except you mistreat me") besides formalities.
Besides that my argument never said that human trust cannot be a more evolved one then the animal ones. The simple fact that trust is existing there as well already shows that it isn't patented by humanity.

Originally posted by Preacher

Also, people can trust one another despite evidence/behavior that violates (or seems to violate) that trust. On the other hand, if you kick your dog more than a couple of times, well, you'll come away with a couple less fingers next time you go to pet him... Now where's your 'trust'?...

Oh, I'd say that applies to humans as well. How was that saying?
"Diplomacy is the art of saying Nice doggie! till you can find a rock."
-- Wynn Catlin
This human exclusive trust as you name it isn't real trust at all IMHO.
And this falseness of obeying and waiting for a weakness to exploit is there in animals as well.

Originally posted by Preacher

Let's bring it down to a human level: If I go out and build a small birdhouse today, it can be said that I have sovereign power over that birdhouse.

Nice Bridhouse example. The thing is as a human I can produce a birdhouse I cannot lift. I can produce an intellect I cannot beat, ...

Originally posted by steampunk

-So we assume an omnipotent being exists and can do whatever s/he/it wants.
-Now we ask him/her/it to do something that logically cannot be so.
-But if it cannot be done then the being cannot be omnipotent.
Proof by contradiction no? Like proving root 2 is not rational. We assume root2 is rational and then show that if it was, we'd get stupid results. Perfectly valid. I don't see how that's unfair.

Well I won't say it is unfair. But you are overlooking one thing as well: When you do your proof by contradiction you do that proove over certain axioms. What we do here however is to do a proof by contradiction that omnipotence cannot be on the basis of our logic.
Now a very valid question would indeed be if we are allowed to apply our logic here at all.
I mean you know my POV on this (so I most certainly would not mention it if I would want to 'win' this discussion), but it most certainly is a point of discussion.

 

[Ghost]

Originally posted by Preacher
I find that fascinating. It sounds like the traditional Jewish belief that "Elijah will come, to prepare the way for Messiah" (leaving an empty chair at the Passover Seder for Elijah, etc.). Is this what you are talking about? (I hadn't heard it in a "ben Ioseph/ben David" context before, that's all

Some people say that will be Elijah, some not... i think that no one knows

One is descendant of Joseph Tribe (Ephraim and Menasseh)
And the other from the House of David

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Preacher
--Not so. The only way they believe He is 'the same' in any sense is that they realize that they, the Jews, and us are all "One god" types of guys. Beyond that, they clearly believe him to be different and distinct than, say, the Christian God. As most are aware (and I've pointed out previously here), to Christians Jesus IS God (and thus greater than all); Muslims not only don't believe JC to be God, they don't even view him as being the "greatest" among men (since they see Muhammed as being superior)... How is that "the same God"?...

Right, and the Jews not only don't believe him to be God, they don't even view him as the "greatest" among men. How is that the same God?

I don't especially care if you think they're three different Gods or one God shared by three religions, but make up your mind, and apply the same criteria to both Judaism and Islam.

 

[Preacher]

Originally posted by Quarto
I don't especially care if you think they're three different Gods or one God shared by three religions, but make up your mind, and apply the same criteria to both Judaism and Islam.

Wish I could do that, but I can't: Scripture constrains me from applying the same criteria to Judaism as to any other faith, as I'd referred to in my previous post. My mind is already "made up", and has been for alm. 14 years now. Besides (as I'd also said before), this ain't just my individual POV here; it is mainstream Christianity's POV on the subject. As such, just about anyone else who's a true Christian & fellow believer with me here likely understands exactly where I'm coming from on this point, and shares that sentiment; anyone who ain't, likely doesn't and won't... It's just hard to convey it to folks who are not of a Christian mindset. I guess the best "boil it down" statement I can make is to say this:

Jews & Christians share the same God (though they have differing beliefs about Him), and Islam believes in an altogether different God.
You (and whoever else) are certainly free to disagree w/ that, but that won't change the fact that it is the Church's (as a whole) POV on the matter. I believe it personally not because the church told me to, but because it makes sense in light of the Bible reading & study that I've done over those 14 years; it 'fits' with what I've read and studied.

For what it's worth, this is one of the main reasons the USA's support for Israel has been so strong since they formed in 1948. While we are a land of many religions, our historical alignment is Judeo-Christian, and since we (Christian) view them (Judeo-) as spiritually being our "brothers" in a sense , we do what brothers do: Stick up for one another in a fight.

Originally posted by Ghost
Some people say that will be Elijah, some not... i think that no one knows

One is descendant of Joseph Tribe (Ephraim and Menasseh)
And the other from the House of David.

Hmmmm. We know Christ was "ben David" (a Judahite), since his geneaology descends from David on both Mary's side and Joseph's (his human "foster" father) side. On the other hand, John the Baptist (since his Dad Zechariah was a priest) would likely had to've been a Levite. Um, do you know the scriptural citation for the ben Iosef person, so I can look into it 4 myself?....

BTW, by what name do y'all Jews refer to your scriptures? (as a Christian, I call it the OT, but I don't wanna offend...)..