The image and likeness of God, physical, spiritual or both?

[Benoni]

Relec,

Let us get down to a few basic principles which I see you are missing.

Satan cannot be Lucifer.

Man has a will, but God has a greater will. Man is carnal in nature and is dead in trespasses and sin and has no freewill to choice God, or God salvation.

Yes man has freewill or choice to sin because that is the nature God gave all of us because of the curse. Freewill is a religious term and cannot be found in the Bible when it comes to salvation.

Yes Pharaoh had a hard heart; and this was a tool God used to get harder and harder until it was so hard God’s purpose would be accomplished with the children of Israel. Rom 9:18 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. 14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

KJV-- harden. 4645 skleruno (sklay-roo'-no); from 4642;
to indurate, i.e. (figuratively) render stubborn:

I just believe Satan is nothing but a tool in the hands of an all powerful God and Satan has no power unless God ordained it. Look at Job it was God who inquired to Satan; it was God who had a hedge to protect Job. It was God who inquired to Satan what about my servant Job.

God was already pleased with Job, but he had a plan that would make Job even better. Job was a perfect man, but his perfection needed to be tested. Job said, "God knoweth the way that I take, and when He hath tried me I shall come forth as gold. For HE performeth the thing that is appointed for me, and many such things are with Him." Job 23:10 & 14. God has prepared a special kind of testing for each individual. In Job 32.13, Elihu said, "God thrusteth Job down, and not man." We can well add, "And not Satan, either!" God takes the full responsibility for every person's fall. These are parts of His ways. All negative forces are as a dog on a leash. They can only do what they are allowed to do by the Hand that holds the leash. The perplexities, the trials, the testings, the pressures and the failures are all God's responsibility and it will all be worked into our good.

 

[Benoni]

Let me quote ray prinzing on this...

"The first Adam died to God and righteousness, and became alive unto sin.

The last Adam died unto sin (Rom. 6:10), and liveth unto God, and so fulfilleth all righteousness.

The first made all men sinners, the last makes all men righteous.

The lives and the deaths of the two Adams are thus greatly contrasting the one to the other.

The FIRST DEATH was a transition from life to death, the SECOND DEATH is a transition from corruption to incorruption, from mortality to immortality. Transformed from the carnal mind to the spiritual mind, which is life and peace, which transformation is wrought by a dying out to the one realm, to come alive to the higher realm. Because -- the second death is prepared to purge out and burn away sin and its results, and so doing cleanse all of God's universe.

Death came as an enemy, the fruitage of an act of disobedience that turned man away from God and into the realm of carnality, minding self and flesh. Now God makes death overcome itself. It is by death that death is rendered powerless, and there arises an upspringing, a new life.

It takes death to destroy death, and thus Christ 'did taste death for every man' --'that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage' (Heb. 2:9, 14-15). Since we are all under the effects of the first death, it is appointed unto us to die once more -- not physical death, we are already in a state of mortality -- but now a dying out to this present death state. We conquer this death of the carnal mind by dying to it -- only God could use such a process bringing victory, but praise God, lie is destroying the first death with the second death"

Ray Prinzing

handy wrote:

I agree, Benoni. I think we have a very limited understanding of what is meant by the statement God is Spirit. Some have taken this to mean that God cannot possibly have any physical attributes. And yet, descriptions of God having physical attributes are all over the Scriptures. The bible talks of God's face, His hands, His eyes, and so on.

Yes, the Scriptures tells us that God is Spirit. ..... And I believe that the many description of God's physical attributes must cause us to re-examine what is meant by spirit.

Frankly, I've never been sure as to why "physical" and "spiritual" were set up to be defined as opposites, unable to occupy the same place and time.

Hi handy,

Man is body, soul and spirit so it is not intentional that the physical is defined as opposite to the spiritual. I see them as occupying different realms for want of a better expression. When Jesus was born of a woman it was a one way trip and His resurrection and glorification are not reversible 'events.' This would mean that the spiritual body Paul speaks of in 1 Cor 15 has parts. It seems that the image and likeness of God FACTORS all this in in the creation of Adam AND when the Word became flesh. If we focus only on Adam's creation in the image and likeness of God what do we do with the resurrected Christ who has a spiritual body for all eternity?

blessings

 

[MMarc]

Just look at the angels who existed before Adam. When they appear to men they have the same form.

 

[Relic]

We have no will or freewill to draw unto God, the word freewill or choice are non-scriptural words; in fact the Bible declares the total opposite. You are right in using the word draw.


John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw (Gk(drag) him: and I will raise him up at the last day. and John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw (Gk(drag) all men unto me.

The word draw is the Greek word from Strong’s 1670: helkuo (hel-koo'-o);or helko (hel'-ko); probably akin to 138; to drag (literally or figuratively): There is no choice for the person when God draws you, drags you or forces you to come; it is God choice not little man.

I totally disagree with you. For anyone to think that God does not give us freedom in this life to choose what we will to do, is just plain not getting it. My children disobeyed me when they were young, do you think God forced them to disobey me, or dragged them to do it? God knows the heart of man and if they choose to not respond to the things of God then they get the appropriate result. We are not a bunch of robot puppets. God gives us the freedom to choose which path to take in most every situation. I do not disagree that God will intervene in the life of a person for specific reason at some specific time, but I don not think that God orchestrated or directs every single step a person does in life. We are not puppets and we are not robots. He gives us options and we are free to choose.

I pick what clothes I want to wear, and I pick what snacks I want to eat, I'm the one who overeats, I'm the one who exercises to work it off. GOD gives me that liberty to conduct my life as I desire. I put on whatever persona, whatever weight on my body and whatever mind-set I desire. It is by the Grace of God that we have choices in life. I'll never deny the fact the GOD allows us to be free thinkers, free doers. It is a gift from God. That type of Grace is a gift. And it is the GRACE of God that we are called according to HIS purpose, to receive everything He Offers to us.... WE PUT ON the armour of GOD. God does not FORCE US TO DO SO. The Fig leaf was man's idea... God did not FORCE Adam to put that fig leaf on to COVER himself. Adam did it because he was thinking for himself. OUTSIDE of the place, the mind-set that was GIVEN to him for his protection against the things of this world. Adam and Eve disobeyed. We have the freedom to Obey or Disobey. God can drag me in front of Him but IF I refuse to obey. I am no less like the man who asked that his servant on the other side of the chasm to bring him water to quench his thirst.

We are not ROBOTS and we are not puppets that have no freedom to choose what to wear. The "spirit" we wear IS the spirit we are. IF we accept the calling, the draw of the Lord God we then take on the Holy Spirit of God and abide in His indwelling Holy Spirit. Backsliders are plenty enough, as are children who fall and stumble. WE are all a work in progress. And IF someone doesn’t choose to repent or submit to the Holy Will of God they are of the devil. Wolves in sheeps clothing are only spirits come dressed up as angels of light. People who are sincere in wanting to know God are not intent on tricking others. There is a huge difference in those who intend to trick and those who are mistaken and have mislead by their mistake. I pray the Lord show you that we are not puppets that he forces our every move and puts on our persona. HE sees our hearts and gives us accordingly in line with the consequences of the mind-set in line with the consequences of the act that follows. That is my belief, not the beliefs of the Universalists. I don't disagree with every single thing you present but this interpretation you have presented here is totally out of my beleifs and it is clearly one of the Universalits.

And the rest of your posting is sooo much misinterpretation of the scriptures it is just shocking that you see the way you have done so. I noticed you doing it in another thread even before you admitted to me that you are of that religion. And here you are doing it again with presenting convoluted interpretation of scripture which is clearly of the Universalistic beliefs. Universalism is not my belief. And your presenting it in these forums is against the forum rules.

The Bible does not teach freewill, does not use the word freewill or man having a choice in the context of salvation, in fact what the Bible does show us is totally contrary to the religious word freewill. I see no free mortal agent or choice when it comes to salvation in its pages. I have searched the scriptures; a word that comes from the mind of man or the traditions of religion and not the scriptures; except the Freewill Offering in the OT. Now there are a few verses in the OT the hint towards free will and even the gospels towards following Jesus; but that has nothing to do with salvation; salvation is a NT revelation only after Christ death and resurrection. What I see is God drawing/dragging people


Notice look at Ephesians 2

Notice the order, God must quicken us be we are dead in sins; then He saves us by grace; then and only then do we have faith and I will add once this has happen we had no choice or freewill.


Eph, 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

(Eph. 6:17). Then the writer to the Hebrews declares that the sword of God’s word is "QUICK ."Quick means living and active  LIFE-GIVING! "For the word of God that speaks is alive and full of power  making it active, operative, energizing and effective; it is sharper than any two-edged sword" (Heb. 4:12, Amplified).

2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved
6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast

 

[Fembot]

Thanks for pointing that out Relic. I felt like crying out blasphemer! But didn't know if I were allowed

 

[Benoni]

Relic,

You can disagree all you want to and you surly did not read what I posted.

I said we have freewill to sin.

We have freewill to choose a blue shirt over green one.

BUT you did not choose your parents, you did not choose your country or your colour of skin; and you did not choose God or have a freewill to choose God until God’s Holy spirit first quickened you/drew you drag you.

That is scriptural fact.

Yes you must have faith but look at the context of how you who are dead in trespasses and sin must be quickened first. (Eph 2) which I just quoted.

No we are not robots we are God’s children/sons and it is his will to be done on earth not our will. I never said “ I don not think that God orchestrated or directs every single step a person does in lifeâ€Â; you did. I am speaking about salvation here not man choosing things in life.

I have been totally open in my belief from the beginning of my postings.

If you have a freewill or choice how about using God’s Word not your bias opinion to prove it. Please do not take words like faith out of the context of God's Word that is like putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Benoni]

Thanks for pointing that out Relic. I felt like crying out blasphemer! But didn't know if I were allowed

Now we have to go to name calling... How about using God's Word and not your opinion if you want to go negative. So far this has been a clean debate. Universalism is not unbiblical; it is just un-orthodox. Notice who the false prophet; notice the content of the verse.

2 Peter 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Strong’s NT:684 apoleia (ap-o'-li-a); from a presumed derivative of NT:622; ruin or loss (physical, spiritual or eternal):

KJV - damnable (-nation), destruction, die, perdition, X perish, pernicious ways, waste.

This is what you are preaching not me; notice what the Greek says the false prophets bring. Do they bring the message that God will save all; do they bring the good news of salvation to the whole earth. No they bring damnations to billions, total annihilation and destruction , perish etc.

Your whole doctrine centers on damnations, eternal torture, and the pagan word hell; you are the one preaching heresies of damnation; not me.

No prove your point using the Bible instead of your bias opinion.

 

[Vic C.]

I want to see this topic get BACK ON TRACK, please. totopic

Benoni, UR is a forbidden subject here, outside the 1 on 1 Debate Forum.

Form our TOS:

3 - No active promotion of other Faiths is allowed:

You will not post any messages; links, images or photos that promote a religion or belief other than Biblical and historical Christianity (atheism is considered a "belief" for the purposes of this rule). Discussing these doctrines are fine, as long as the beliefs are not actively promoted. This includes Universal Reconciliation and Universal Salvation, which are only allowed in the 1 on 1 Debate Forum. This is a Christian Forum as the name suggests.


To Stranger:

Still not the clearest sentence you have ever written - what do you mean by separating the physical from the spiritual? In these discussions references to the physical man would presumeably fall into the framework of man being 'body, soul and spirit.'

Genesis 1:26 (NASB)
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Are you saying regardless of what man becomes 'physically' (or spiritually?) this cannot affect the image of God in man?

I won't say 100% Yes to the latter statement because I have serious reservations regarding the nature of a cloned human, if man is ever cloned ( I pray for never ) What I meant in the former statement is that simply inserting a pig's heart valve into a person does not change one's spirit. How do we change something that's not in our realm? I would also say that while man indeed has a body and a spirit, he IS a soul.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

I didn't intend on coming in here for a debate, I believe what I believe based on how scriptural passages have been revealed to me. I just want to mention that your first statement was a little unclear. Are you saying a forensic pathologist would deem a person not 100% human when they discovered someone had within him an animal valve? No, I would venture to guess they'd write up their report to say that person suffered from heart disease and had valve replacement surgery. I would have to disagree that it made that person "less" human. :gah

As to affects upon the human reproductive genes animal part transplants require 'pharmaceutical products' to prevent the body from rejecting the transplant. This rejection is what I would call natural and has to be artifically suppressed by unnatural means. Though there are problems with human to human organ tranplants and I have no objection to these.

No offense, but this doesn't address the issue of "does it change the reproductive genes?" Will a person who has a replacement valve cause their offspring to also have a pig valve... or any pig parts?

 

[Benoni]

I am not a UR.

I never said I was a UR. I think UR means Unitarian Universalist; no way do I believe in UR.

I am a CU. (Christian Universalist)

I want to see this topic get BACK ON TRACK, please. totopic

Benoni, UR is a forbidden subject here, outside the 1 on 1 Debate Forum.

Form our TOS:

3 - No active promotion of other Faiths is allowed:

You will not post any messages; links, images or photos that promote a religion or belief other than Biblical and historical Christianity (atheism is considered a "belief" for the purposes of this rule). Discussing these doctrines are fine, as long as the beliefs are not actively promoted. This includes Universal Reconciliation and Universal Salvation, which are only allowed in the 1 on 1 Debate Forum. This is a Christian Forum as the name suggests.


To Stranger:

Still not the clearest sentence you have ever written - what do you mean by separating the physical from the spiritual? In these discussions references to the physical man would presumeably fall into the framework of man being 'body, soul and spirit.'

Genesis 1:26 (NASB)
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Are you saying regardless of what man becomes 'physically' (or spiritually?) this cannot affect the image of God in man?

I won't say 100% Yes to the latter statement because I have serious reservations regarding the nature of a cloned human, if man is ever cloned ( I pray for never ) What I meant in the former statement is that simply inserting a pig's heart valve into a person does not change one's spirit. How do we change something that's not in our realm? I would also say that while man indeed has a body and a spirit, he IS a soul.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

I didn't intend on coming in here for a debate, I believe what I believe based on how scriptural passages have been revealed to me. I just want to mention that your first statement was a little unclear. Are you saying a forensic pathologist would deem a person not 100% human when they discovered someone had within him an animal valve? No, I would venture to guess they'd write up their report to say that person suffered from heart disease and had valve replacement surgery. I would have to disagree that it made that person "less" human. :gah

[quote:jwtrb5ca]As to affects upon the human reproductive genes animal part transplants require 'pharmaceutical products' to prevent the body from rejecting the transplant. This rejection is what I would call natural and has to be artifically suppressed by unnatural means. Though there are problems with human to human organ tranplants and I have no objection to these.

No offense, but this doesn't address the issue of "does it change the reproductive genes?" Will a person who has a replacement valve cause their offspring to also have a pig valve... or any pig parts? [/quote:jwtrb5ca]

 

[stranger]

Vic C wrote:

Are you saying regardless of what man becomes 'physically' (or spiritually?) this cannot affect the image of God in man?

I won't say 100% Yes to the latter statement because I have serious reservations regarding the nature of a cloned human, if man is ever cloned ( I pray for never ) What I meant in the former statement is that simply inserting a pig's heart valve into a person does not change one's spirit. How do we change something that's not in our realm? I would also say that while man indeed has a body and a spirit, he IS a soul.

There's a relation between the physical and the spiritual, though the realms are different as you say, they belong to the same reality.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

I didn't intend on coming in here for a debate, I believe what I believe based on how scriptural passages have been revealed to me. I just want to mention that your first statement was a little unclear. Are you saying a forensic pathologist would deem a person not 100% human when they discovered someone had within him an animal valve? No, I would venture to guess they'd write up their report to say that person suffered from heart disease and had valve replacement surgery. I would have to disagree that it made that person "less" human. :gah

Let's assume the pathologists makes the finding as you say, if in case after case the percentage of animal parts increase there will presumeably be a point of recapitulation.

As to affects upon the human reproductive genes animal part transplants require 'pharmaceutical products' to prevent the body from rejecting the transplant. This rejection is what I would call natural and has to be artifically suppressed by unnatural means. Though there are problems with human to human organ tranplants and I have no objection to these.

No offense, but this doesn't address the issue of "does it change the reproductive genes?" Will a person who has a replacement valve cause their offspring to also have a pig valve... or any pig parts?

I don't anticipate the child will be born with a pig's heart valve, but may nevertheless end up with one, or possibly have other unanticipated ailments. The risk factor of a child suffering from (heart) disease increases if a parent (or parents) suffer from heart disease. What triggers(1) the disease in the child? I would say what doesn't help hinders but God only knows.

If the genetics are triggered and the child needs a heart valve replacement (like the father) the father can say with new meaning : this is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone'. Give science time - I'll post a few brief quotes about other scientific and ethical concerns as of 2004.

blessings

 

[stranger]

Here is a link to an article that summarises a range of concerns in bioscience other than cloning.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/glenn.html

The article is a brief about the ethical issues, problems and hoped for benefits that the 'new science' will bring.

blessings

 

[stranger]

There are opposites in the scriptures like: light and darkness, good and evil etc. The opposite to the image of God would have to be the image of the (first) beast.

Revelation 13:15 NASB

He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.

Note the parallel between this verse and the Genesis account of God creating man (in His own image) and breathing into man the breath of life. Could Rev 13:15 require a technological sophistication to fulfil the prophesy that is only possible in the last days?

blessings

 

[Fembot]

Stranger, thank you for the link above and your statements. Though I am aware of these developments, it is very helpful here. The link states clearly where genetic engineering is heading.

To state it simply: The steps that are being taken by science now may seem innocent and as an advancement for human beings who have diseases, however, the NEXT steps are very close, scary and questionable.

At what point will we say ENOUGH this is not of God. He did not intend for us to mix with other creatures and put their DNA in our bodies etc etc. At what point? For stranger and I, that is obviously now.

 

[Vic C.]

There are opposites in the scriptures like: light and darkness, good and evil etc. The opposite to the image of God would have to be the image of the (first) beast.

Revelation 13:15 NASB

He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.

Note the parallel between this verse and the Genesis account of God creating man (in His own image) and breathing into man the breath of life. Could Rev 13:15 require a technological sophistication to fulfil the prophesy that is only possible in the last days?

blessings

Hi Stranger. I honestly don't understand how quoting Revelation is relevant. I don't see a correlation between it and Genesis. IMO and from someone who has studied Revelation from most every angle, I have to say, in respect of course, that this is a stretch. You will not find that belief in any acceptable eschatological circle. I also do not believe we should be dealing with genetic engineering, that is wrong, but simple transplants of unmodified parts is the issue. Continuing to bring up genetic splicing and relating it to these type of transplants distorts the issue at hand.

Now I will admit that I took a primarily logical and practical approach, but did do some research on the ethical side of the coin. Since the Bible is basically silent on this, the few passages available lrft me with no ethical dilemma. Now, you know me and know I disagree with some RC beliefs, but in all fairness, I should share with the readers what the Vatican has to say because I do admire the RCC for it's moral and ethical ground on some many levels.

Please read before passing judgment:

To analyse more deeply the point under discussion, two issues of an ethical nature must be addressed. First, there is the question of the use of animals in order to improve man's chances of survival or to improve his health; the obvious starting point here is the particular way in which one views the relationship between man and animals.(55) Second, there is the question of the acceptability of breaching the barrier between animal species and the human species.

With regard to the first issue, contemporary thinking includes two opposing and extreme viewpoints.(56) There are those who believe that animals and man have equal dignity and those who believe that animals are totally at the mercy of man. In the former case, the use of animals is seen as species-ism or tyranny of man over animals. Even reducing human suffering could not justify the use of animals unless the contrary possibility was also allowed. In the latter case, man can use animals arbitrarily without being limited by ethical considerations.

9. From our point of view, supported by the biblical perspective that asserts, as stated above, that man is created "in the image and likeness of God" (cf. Gen 1: 26-27), we reaffirm that humans have a unique and higher dignity. However, humans must also answer to the Creator for the manner in which they treat animals. As a consequence, the sacrifice of animals can be justified only if required to achieve an important benefit for man, as is the case with xenotransplantation of organs or tissues to man, even when this involves experiments on animals and/or genetically modifying them.

However, even in this case, there is the ethical requirement that in using animals, man must observe certain conditions: unnecessary animal suffering must be prevented; criteria of real necessity and reasonableness must be respected; genetic modifications that could significantly alter the biodiversity and the balance of the species in the animal world must be avoided.(57)

The theological and moral point of view sees no substantial problem in the utilization of different animal species (nonhuman primates or nonprimates), but leaves open the question of differing levels of sensibilities between animals of different species and that of equilibrium among species and within a species.

The point should also be made that Catholic theology does not have preclusions, on a religious or ritual basis, in using any animal as a source of organs or tissues for transplantation to man.(58) The question of the acceptability of an animal organ, - once it has been established that personal identity is not affected by xenotransplantation, and once all the general ethical requirements of transplantation have been met, - becomes one on the cultural and psychological level. Therefore, it may be possible to overcome initial misgivings by providing the necessary support in an effective manner.

Xenotransplantation and the Identity of the Recipient

10. In addition to considerations of a theological nature, and perhaps even before these are made, an ethical evaluation of the practice of xenotransplantation must be measured against current anthropological findings, especially that branch of philosophical anthropology that deals with personal identity. (59)Any ethical appraisal of xenotransplantation must ultimately address the question of whether the "introduction of a foreign organ into the human body modifies a person's identity and the rich meaning of the human body?" And if the answer is affirmative, one must ask up to what point is such modification acceptable.

(skip to 11)

11. Such a modification, as already noted, affects the historical dimension of the person, and thus the individual's communicative structure as mediated by his corporeality.

In light of a renewed appreciation of the body and of the symbolic understanding of it that much of contemporary anthropology offers, it should be observed that not all organs of the human body are in equal measure an expression of the unrepeatable identity of the person. There are some which exclusively perform their specific function; others, instead, add to their functionality a strong and personal symbolic element which inevitably depends on the subjectivity of the individual; and others still, such as the encephalon and the gonads, are indissolubly linked with the personal identity of the subject because of their specific function, independently of their symbolic implications. Therefore one must conclude that whereas the transplantation of these last can never be morally legitimate, because of the inevitable objective consequences that they would produce in the recipient or in his descendants,(61) those organs which are seen as being purely functional and those with greater personalized significance must be assessed, case by case, specifically in relation to the symbolic meaning which they take on for each individual person.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/ponti ... ti_en.html

Their conclusions and mine and others here are practically the same. It's a question of ethics 1) when the animal in question is subject to harsh treatment and 2) based solely of the organ in question. Valve transplants do not change the physical nature of Man. Genetic tampering of ANY kind, including cloning, can and will, IMO.

 

[Benoni]

I agree with you Vic C.

This is about as close as you can get bringing God's diety down to flesh. God is a spirit not flesh, human or animal. This dust body no matter what happens will return to the dust. If God did not want these things to happen they would not happen. Man or Satan are powerless unless God ordains it; nothing happens out side of God's will. If something should or could happen outside of God's Will; then God would be a god.

 

[Vic C.]

I agree with you Vic C....

Thank you Benoni. LOL, it was tough for me to post Vatican documentation. But they put it in such a way it is hard to deny. :yes

 

[Fembot]

In addition to considerations of a theological nature, and perhaps even before these are made, an ethical evaluation of the practice of xenotransplantation must be measured against current anthropological findings, especially that branch of philosophical anthropology that deals with personal identity. (59)Any ethical appraisal of xenotransplantation must ultimately address the question of whether the "introduction of a foreign organ into the human body modifies a person's identity and the rich meaning of the human body?" And if the answer is affirmative, one must ask up to what point is such modification acceptable.

Interesting.

 

[Fembot]

I agree with you Vic C.

This is about as close as you can get bringing God's diety down to flesh. God is a spirit not flesh, human or animal. This dust body no matter what happens will return to the dust. If God did not want these things to happen they would not happen. Man or Satan are powerless unless God ordains it; nothing happens out side of God's will. If something should or could happen outside of God's Will; then God would be a god.

Perhaps God allows people to have free will so that He knows our hearts and so that we are written in the book of life.
In the future, if there are people who choose to separate themselves from the rest of the human race, that might be God's way of weeding out the foolish. Those who want to BE Him.

That brings up a question in my head. Anyone feel free to answer:

Do you think God wants us to create new species?
Is he ok with us changing the image he created (our bodies)?

Honest questions. Please give me some honest answers with some Bible quotes, perhaps?

 

[Benoni]

The problem with the religious belief in freewill is it is not scriptural, it is a religious view. Man has a freeewill to sin. Man does not have a freewill to serve God. Man's nature totally rejects all things of God because man is dead in trustpasses and sin. A dead man spiritually cannot see, hear God.

You seem to have a problem with God being truly soverign; there is no way any manor devil can pull the woolover God's divine eyes.

I agree with you Vic C.

This is about as close as you can get bringing God's diety down to flesh. God is a spirit not flesh, human or animal. This dust body no matter what happens will return to the dust. If God did not want these things to happen they would not happen. Man or Satan are powerless unless God ordains it; nothing happens out side of God's will. If something should or could happen outside of God's Will; then God would be a god.

Perhaps God allows people to have free will so that He knows our hearts and so that we are written in the book of life.
In the future, if there are people who choose to separate themselves from the rest of the human race, that might be God's way of weeding out the foolish. Those who want to BE Him.

That brings up a question in my head. Anyone feel free to answer:

Do you think God wants us to create new species?
Is he ok with us changing the image he created (our bodies)?

Honest questions. Please give me some honest answers with some Bible quotes, perhaps?

 

[Fembot]

The problem with the religious belief in freewill is it is not scriptural, it is a religious view. Man has a freeewill to sin. Man does not have a freewill to serve God. Man's nature totally rejects all things of God because man is dead in trustpasses and sin. A dead man spiritually cannot see, hear God.

You seem to have a problem with God being truly soverign; there is no way any manor devil can pull the woolover God's divine eyes.

Sure would be nice if you placed your response below the quote like everyone else. But whatever. I did not say those highlighted words. This conversation is now over. I don't like conversing with someone on a public site who purposely says I believe something that I do not.

No one can put wool over God's eyes.

What I said-that you misconstrued-is that God will weed the good from the bad by letting us choose to be deceived or not.