/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>593782

No more sinful than modern medicine. It disgusts me but I have nothing other than my feelings to judge it with.

>>593782

>Those baby monkeys are living a hell

No god creature should suffer like this

>>593782

>Is cloning sinful?

>Is gene editing sinful?

Non-Humans: No

Humans: Yes

>Is fixing genes that cause mental/physical handicaps sinful?

Depends.

Would a clone of a human have a soul?

If so, would the soul also be a direct clone?

>>593791

>Humans: Yes

What will happen when communist atheist Chinks will make 140 IQ superhumans and start taking over the Earth? Are we supposed to just sit and take it in the ass?

>>593798

We have nukes and guns for a reason.

>>593796

>Would a clone of a human have a soul?

Yes.

>If so, would the soul also be a direct clone?

No. One Human=One Soul

>>593798

And how about not allowing it at first place? Asides the fact that it will, most likely, fail.

Stop watching star wars too much.

In fact, cloning for world conquest is one of the most idiotic method I have ever witnessed. It is thousand times more better and maybe even easier, to make army of androids, than human clones, that are 'til this day, impossible.

>>593788

How are they living in hell?

>>593796

I imagine it would. Twins have unique souls, and a clone is just a time-displaced twin.

>>593800

China already allows babby's first genemodding to create better babies. As gene therapy advances, world governments will start using it.

America might not, but China will as soon as possible.

>>593803

>I do believe that the only restrictions that are placed on animals are there because stuff like torture and meaningless slaughter makes the moral compass of the human doing it get damaged.

Yep. And besides this, since humans are meant to rule creation, we are basically ruining our realm bu improper management. Any law that "protects" animals on one sight is actually caring about humans. Paul even outright states that:

For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?

Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

>>593791

I'm going full Ian Malcom.

Always sin. You must not play being God.

>>593798

Those creatures would be so mentally unstable that whatever power they do manage to get from that frankenstein science (that most likely wouldn't work) will dissipate within two generations when their genetic engineering comes unraveled.

>>593809

>Always sin. You must not play being God.

But we already use prosthetics and glasses to fix our shortcomings. Why not genetics?

>>593811

>Those creatures would be so mentally unstable

How do you know that?

>>593809

>Always sin. You must not play being God.

A) It really isnt to play God. AT ALL.

B) We are made in image and likeness of God, so it is excusable for us as long as it doesn't pose danger for us

>>593782

If we're on the subject of science fiction…

What about cybernetic enhancement? Not even things like brain uploading or immortality, but limb replacement or similar bodily changes?

What about in the case of members that are already missing or damaged? Would it be a sin for an amputee to get a cybernetic arm "better" than an organic one or a person woth bad vision to get artificial lenses with above-perfect vision and other functions?

>>593782

It doesn't function like science fiction. They're just given a blank egg so that it'll undergo mitosis again.

>>593809

>>593801

>How are they living in hell?

>>593798

>140 iq

this iq isnt as un-common as you think. Go to your uni and you will see at least a dozen of them or go to japanese gaming channels.

>>593782

It's no more sinful than growing bananas or watermelons, which have been genetically engineered for centuries.

>>593812

It's different because that's something that you already had. You could be considered "incomplete" or "defective".

>>594293

That was done by selective breeding, eugenics. Not by CRISP engineering. Corporations want to patent genes and their creations. They have already done this with bacteria. What's next?

>>593827

I'm not sure if I want to live in a world with people with super human abilities. It's an arms race that only can get worse.

>>594281

>Diamond isn't as rare as you think. Go to a diamond mine and you'll find it everywhere

>>594512

Diamonds arent really rare. They're just monopolized by large companies.

>>593835

>clone human

>now you have two humans

>use one for human rights violations

>some how not immoral

>>593782

>is cloning sinful

As it involves destroying a fetus in an embryo, yes, but if it didn't it wouldn't be any more sinful than twins being born.

>is gene editing sinful

Probably

>>594512

if diamond mines can be found with just few clicks or a short walk then it isnt that rare

>>594852

>if diamond mines can be found with just few clicks or a short walk then it isnt that rare

https://www.arkansas.com/outdoors/unique/diamond-crystals/

Guess diamonds aren't rare.

>>593782

Yes, playing God is sinful, how is this even a question?

>>594512

Terrible example, diamond is easily the most common out of the precious stones and it keeps its price through lack of domestic production in Europe and the US and cartel shenanigans.

>Born too early to be genetically perfect, born too late to get the kinda death you deserve.

>>594298

> It's an arms race that only can get worse.

this