Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

The end of the stem cell debate as we know it?

Jun 6, 2007 11:33PM PDT
Scientists Use Skin To Create Embryonic Stem Cells.
(Washington Post login: semods4@yahoo.com; pw = speakeasy)

>> Three teams of scientists said yesterday they had coaxed ordinary mouse skin cells to become what are effectively embryonic stem cells without creating or destroying embryos in the process -- an advance that, if it works with human cells, could revolutionize stem cell research and quench one of the hottest bioethical controversies of the decade.

In work being published today, the scientists describe a method for turning back the biological clocks of skin cells growing in laboratory dishes. Thus rejuvenated, the cells give rise to daughter cells that are able to become all the parts needed to make a new mouse. <<

However, I fear this will not in fact end the debate, as deeper in the article it is reported that the stem cells can be used to create both sperm and eggs, and so in fact (not just metaphorically) a clone of the original mouse, or by in vitro fertilization with sperm and and eggs created from different mice. If this holds up with humans, do they have a soul? Will the extreme right-to-lifers declare that the mere cells are "alive," because they have all the potential of a fertilized embryo? Stay tuned...

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Actually, there was no crime from the Roman point of view.
Jun 18, 2007 11:13PM PDT

According to the text, Jesus was beaten in an attempt to avoid killing Him. Pilate was uneasy about executing the man, and hoped the crowd would be satisfied with a beating. While the soldiers picked up on the 'king' idea and mocked it, there is no sense of any especially harsh treatment directed at Jesus. Jesus was most likely treated like any other man being crucified. In fact, some of the soldiers were moved to alleviate His suffering somewhat, and were impressed by the events of the day.

- Collapse -
No nails? What do you think held them on their crosses?
Jun 18, 2007 11:01PM PDT

Carrying their crosses. Do you think that the Roman soldiers carried their crosses for them so they could stroll to the site?

The crown of thorns did what to hasten death? Also, remember that they had been in captivity for awhile. Jesus had never been in jail.

The spear wasn't used because the idea was to prolong their suffering. Instead, their legs were broken to insure they would not escape or survive. The spear merely confirmed that Jesus was already dead. Jesus was already dead because He had given up His life. It also fulfilled a prophecy that none of His bones would be broken.

- Collapse -
they were tied with ropes
Jun 19, 2007 12:22AM PDT

according to what i've read.

they (the common criminals who were crucified) would die of hunger, dehydration and possibly asphyxiation.

the crosses of criminals were usually put together "on-site" and they didn't usually have the 'honour' of a public parade before the act was carried out.

they wanted to make an example of christ, so they made it into a 'show' and walked him through the streets.

and BTW, i learned a lovely word today, hypovolaemic.....


.,

- Collapse -
There is no evidence that the Romans wanted to make an
Jun 19, 2007 5:32AM PDT

example of Jesus. He had taught civil obedience, and had no political ambitions or claims. Pilate said that he found no fault in the man. Pilate wanted to release Him. It was the Jewish religious leaders who wanted Jesus killed. They simply applied political pressure to force Pilate to do something that he did not want to do. There was no reason for Pilate to make an example of Jesus. There was an excellent reason for him to do the opposite.

There is also no reason to assume that Jesus was nailed, but the criminals were not. Similarly, there is no reason to think that He was treated differently with respect to carrying the cross.

Yes, His treatment was horrific, and might have killed Him. However, His pronouncement made it clear that He thought that this part of His plan was complete, and that He could now relinquish His spirit into the Father's hands. Yes, he might have succumbed at that point, but it is also possible He simply decided that it was time to move on. No one can prove which it was. The real claim to His power over life was established three days later.

- Collapse -
a first time for everything
Jun 19, 2007 1:01PM PDT

"There is also no reason to assume that Jesus was nailed"


say what?

.,

- Collapse -
You seem to have overlooked the 'but'.
Jun 19, 2007 3:08PM PDT

One can't understand a sentence if one ignores half of the sentence.

That's frequently called taking things out of context.

- Collapse -
if one ignores half of the sentence.
Jun 19, 2007 8:30PM PDT

allow me to rephrase it:
There is also no reason to assume that the criminals were not nailed, but that christ was.

what particular religious river do you swim in that does not allow you to "assume" that christ was nailed to a cross?


.,

- Collapse -
Those who refuse to see, will not see,
Jun 19, 2007 11:51PM PDT

and there is nothing that can be done to correct their understanding.

- Collapse -
ya ain't just whistlin' Dixie
Jun 20, 2007 1:01AM PDT

and you 'forgot' to mention on which branch of which religion you sit....

.,

- Collapse -
Doubting Thomas is an expression
Jun 19, 2007 8:05PM PDT

that contains evidence of nailing. There's no way the Bible contains every tidbit a detective needs to reassemble the life and death of Christ or the history of the Jewish and other mentioned peoples. Much evidence is found in other writings but conclusions drawn cannot be 100% provable to all. Nails, also, did not come from Lowes. They were hand forged and reused. You did not throw them away just because they were bent. You fixed them. as well, they tended to be quite large. Today, we'd call them spikes. Carpenters didn't use 4 and 6 penny nails to do finishing work. Happy

- Collapse -
Then why would he have nail marks?
Jun 20, 2007 12:58AM PDT

John 20:24-25 Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."


Diana

- Collapse -
You didn't read my post either.
Jun 20, 2007 1:52AM PDT

It is quite clear that Jesus was nailed to the cross. That WAS NOT my point.

- Collapse -
an interesting read
Jun 19, 2007 12:29AM PDT
- Collapse -
"...have forsaken me"
Jun 19, 2007 12:00PM PDT

I'd heard in this topic that Jesus was without sin, yet when he said those words, he (I read this, too) sinned and God looked away because he could not look at sin. yet Jesus is God, so ... Well, lets just say this is confusing stuff, and I think the people telling it are a bit confused.

- Collapse -
He took our sin on Himself. He, personally, did not sin by
Jun 19, 2007 12:28PM PDT

saying these words, but He had taken personal responsibility for the sins of all who would place their faith in Him. Only God could pay the price that was required.

God the Father, in some sense, separated Himself from God the Son. That separation was the source of Jesus' agony. We are not told what all this meant within the Godhead, but we are told that this is what happened and that this is what God had intended from the beginning.

- Collapse -
Maybe it was all about roaches
Jun 19, 2007 1:23PM PDT

It was a big mistake and he was trying to atone for that.

- Collapse -
so in fact he was singing
Jun 19, 2007 8:42PM PDT
- Collapse -
She had to create mary jane first
Jun 20, 2007 1:55AM PDT

which is why he screwed up so much. I get it! Happy

- Collapse -
Do you
Jun 20, 2007 8:21AM PDT

think he knows y'all's messing with him?

- Collapse -
(NT) Only SHE knows for sure :P
Jun 20, 2007 9:04AM PDT
- Collapse -
(NT) I said "he" not "He".
Jun 20, 2007 3:41PM PDT
- Collapse -
It's like this...
Jun 19, 2007 1:45PM PDT

Simple: Jesus bore our sins on himself. How is this possible? We don't know and never will until we go to Heaven. Why? He loved us so much. But it wasn't so much that He, a normal, everyday man bore everyone's sins, it was that He, the ONLY perfect, unsinning, pure, holy, perfect man, who never sinned or committed ANYTHING WRONG bore our sins. He did nothing wrong. God turned away because He was ashamed that His Son was suffering, just as any father would. We have no idea whatsoever, how He can be Father, Son, and Holy Ghost at the same time, but He is. The point is that Jesus is the only pure and perfect sacrifice who died the worst death, on the cross, to save us of our sins. He could do it because He was and is perfect and never sinned. He also was COMPLETELY man and completely God, again, we don't claim to be know-it-alls, we don't know how it works. Because He was completely man, He suffered our pains and temptations. Anyway, there will never be anyone who is perfect, only Jesus.

I must ask however, is this the subject of the topic? It matters, but not here on this forum. Start another topic.

- Collapse -
Dragon, this guy does
Jun 19, 2007 2:25PM PDT
not understand how we do things on SE. I predict he won't last long. :-D

BTW, 160 posts is too slow to load on dialup, and my work here is done. Happy
- Collapse -
(NT) I've switched to the tree view for faster loading
Jun 20, 2007 2:00AM PDT
- Collapse -
(NT) Doesn't help. (right now I'm at school- T1)
Jun 20, 2007 5:28AM PDT