"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." Gen. 2:7 KJV "living being" NAS & NRSV & NIV & NKJV

There are some within Adventism who believe that this verse tells us when a group of dividing cells becomes a person: When God has breathed the breath of life into that group of cells e.g. when there is some chance that those cells may live independently outside of the body of the mother.

My comment: The single verse cited in a previous reference is not the only verse thought to speak to the issue. Some would likely think that the Genesis verse I have cited speaks more directly to the issue than does the other verese.

I do not expect to get deeple involved in this subject. But, I had to jump in on this aspect.

It looks like Dr. West himself is a keen student of Theology. Reuters has the following to say about him:

West, whose family owned an automotive business in Michigan, took an unorthodox route to becoming a cell scientist. He studied physics at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York, and later attended Andrews University, a Seventh-day Adventist college in Michigan.

KNOWS 'MORE ABOUT RELIGION THAN SCIENCE'

In an August story in the Boston Globe, West is quoted as saying, ``I think I know more about religion than science.''

After earning a doctorate in cell biology from Baylor College in Houston in 1989, West formed Geron Corp. (NasdaqNM:GERN - news), which he envisioned would find a cure for old age.

I got the quote above by searching the "Adventists in the News" web site.

My understanding, based entirely on news reports, is that Dr. West is not presently a Seventh-day Adventist. I may be wrong.

However, there is nothing in SDA Doctrine that would prohibit one from being a SDA and cloning a human being.

It should be noted that scientists are susggesting that the news reports of this proclaim more than actually happened.

If not in doctrine, then what about in principle?

Daryl:

Principle: Yes, that is where it is at. That is a critical question for today. This is where the SDA Chruch often leaves it between the individual and God. The application of that principle often is springs from our culture, personality, and our individual spiritual growth, as well as other things. Perhaps in many areas we can not leglislate the application of principle, but must leave it to the individual and God. In a sense, the application of principle is even more where it is at.

If I tell you that I love the Lord, and that I have studied from scripture, and am convinced that this technology is acceptable, do you then have the right to question my commitment to God because your theological understanding differs? I get concerned about a tone I've encountered on this site that assumes that a certain stance is "the" Christian stance. From where I'm seated, I see the influence of populist protestant voices, north American and image to the beast style, and no-one challenges them.

Situational ethics are relevant when we are placed in a position that the bible doesn't directly address.

The tone of scripture seems to condone easing suffering, and contributing to the quality of life. If no-one else will suffer - and there appears to be no question that embryonic cells can not suffer - isn't it cruelty to impede research that seems to contain some answers? Respect for human life implies respect for those already formed.

When the word "principle" is used, there is an unwritten implication that those who differ are "unprincipled", when in fact, people might be acting out of the highest principles, according to their understanding. And they just might be "right".

I respect the views of those whose opinions differ from mine, and thus far I've seen nothing definitive except the bible's description of what makes a living soul.

Are those who complain about this science willing, in the event of their death, to bequeath their kidneys, eyes, etc, to save others?

Zyph:

I hope that your comment on "principle" was not directed to me.

My asumptions on "principle" include: a) People must search for the underlyling principle. God's people include those who understand "principle" differently. But, that does not mean that they should not search deeply for the principle. It cirtainly does not mean that those who differ are "unprincipled." b) Even with a common understanding of principle, God's people often differ on the application of that principle. Those differences may come from differences in personality, culture, etc.

NOTE: I am not saying that everything is O. K., and there are no absolutes.

[ December 16, 2001: Message edited by: Gregory ]

[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Gregory ]

Gregory,

I was referring to Daryl's post just before yours. He said something like, "If not in doctrine, then what about principle?" This implies a belief in absolute principle. While angels may have a thorough understanding of God's principles, I don't think we have. Hence this debate!

I agree completely with the things you have posted thus far.

I have a question. If people object to the destruction of very early embryos, what is the problem? Is it because those folk regard it as murder? Or is it for other reasons?

We have the 6th commandment:

Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

I guess the question really is, at what point does God consider life to have begun? Upon conception, after birth, or at some point in between?

_________________________
It is more blessed to give
than to receive. (Acts 20:35)

Daryl

Daryl:

The questions may not be: "At what point does life begin?" I am thinking of one denomination that has stated the question in that form. They know from the standpoint of biology that that life exists in the single cell that begins mitosis. They then use this position to tell their members that they should not use most common forms of birth control, as these forms bring death to that single cell. The qeustion may be: "At what point do we have human life created in the image of God?

Thou shalt not kill: There is valid reason for translating it as: Thou shalt not murder. These are two very different propositions.

[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Gregory ]