Genetic Abominations (photos, articles, etc.)

[The Dryad]

3 minutes ago, HayaH said:

There is complaint written in Bible about it:

You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a dog into the house of  your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are an abomination to your God. (Deuteronomy 23:18)

 

If it's written, it's written with a reason.

This verse means that God is not cheap, and to give him a vow/money that is cheap is disrespectful to Him.

 

Which literally makes no sense in retrospect to dog breeding according to human intent.

[Lucinda]

Wasn't money man-made?

 

Lucinda

[Knight of Cydonia]

9 minutes ago, HayaH said:

There is complaint written in Bible about it:

You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a dog into the house of  your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are an abomination to your God. (Deuteronomy 23:18)

 

If it's written, it's written with a reason.

Most interpretations of that indicate that a "dog" is a person of very low status, not the actual animal.

 

But let's just say that that is to be interpreted literally based on that translation. So I guess you're not supposed to eat wheat, maize, or rice either? Because those have also been selectively bred since prehistory.

[overturn overturn overturn]

1 minute ago, The Dryad said:

6 minutes ago, HayaH said:

There is complaint written in Bible about it:

You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a dog into the house of  your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are an abomination to your God. (Deuteronomy 23:18)

 

If it's written, it's written with a reason.

This verse means that God is not cheap, and to give him a vow/money that is cheap is disrespectful to Him.

 

Which literally makes no sense in retrospect to dog breeding according to human intent.

We don't see that breeding the dogs is cheap business. 

God probably knows why he said it to be written. You don't know what he thought about it, exactly, as well. 

 

But there is the connection, forbidden is to mix things separately created (as plants and animals and humans)

[overturn overturn overturn]

1 minute ago, Knight of Cydonia said:

But let's just say that that is to be interpreted literally based on that translation. So I guess you're not supposed to eat wheat, maize, or rice either? Because those have also been selectively bred since prehistory.

Just now, HayaH said:

But there is the connection, forbidden is to mix things separately created (as plants and animals and humans)

 

 

[overturn overturn overturn]

5 minutes ago, Lucinda said:

Wasn't money man-made?

 

Lucinda

Lucinda, what exactly is your thought? About corruption? Power? 

[The Dryad]

1 minute ago, HayaH said:

We don't see that breeding the dogs is cheap business. 

God probably knows why he said it to be written. You don't know what he thought about it, exactly, as well. 

 

But there is the connection, forbidden is to mix things separately created (as plants and animals and humans)

So what? As a racially mixed person am I an abomination to God? Breeding dogs according to human's needs and desires doesn't mean that dogs are suddenly some different species, at one point all dogs were wolves. You weren't there when the world was created, so you know about the same as anyone else who can pick up a book.

[overturn overturn overturn]

1 minute ago, The Dryad said:

So what? As a racially mixed person am I an abomination to God? Breeding dogs according to human's needs and desires doesn't mean that dogs are suddenly some different species, at one point all dogs were wolves. You weren't there when the world was created, so you know about the same as anyone else who can pick up a book

The Dryad, read carefully. It's about mixing species made as ''basic'' species. Mixing races does not belong in this category. 

 

Where we've been when world was created you don't know. Only God knows it, for now.

 

[Knight of Cydonia]

23 minutes ago, HayaH said:

But there is the connection, forbidden is to mix things separately created (as plants and animals and humans)

That's not what I asked. I wasn't asking about how you feel about plants and animals mixing, I know that already. I was asking for clarification about when you said "One thing is having natural variations, other thing is cause an intentional variation in scientific way. It's unnatural." People have been causing "intentional variation" in scientific ways for thousands of years, through the practice of selective breeding.

 

Dogs are one of the oldest examples of this. When I asked how you felt about dogs because they were developed via selective breeding, you quoted the bible talking negatively about them, saying "if it's written, it's written for a reason". So I can only assume that means you believe that dogs are unnatural, and you feel negatively towards them. Is that true or not? If it's true, then you should logically feel the same about everything else created through selective breeding - some other of the oldest examples being wheat, rice, and maize. Actually pretty much everything we eat has gone through some kind of selective breeding. If it's not true, then what was the point of posting the bible verse, and why wouldn't you just say "selective breeding is fine, my issue is with mixing the genes of plants and animals"?

[overturn overturn overturn]

@Lucinda

We actually see the sense of your question.

 

Answer is, that human beings are using the money to buy food, clothes, anything.

If source of money is undesirable, and food is bought for wages for a dog (as it is written), that it should not be offered to the God, as gift, etc.

In modern times, it means, what we consume should be clean, in sense of ways how we gain money for our food, clothes, since our own bodies are temples for our souls (and soul belongs to God).

[The Dryad]

Just now, HayaH said:

The Dryad, read carefully. It's about mixing species made as ''basic'' species. Mixing races does not belong in this category. 

 

Where we've been when world was created you don't know. Only God knows it, for now.

 

You referenced selective breeding as being sinful, so that falls into anything that is... dissimilar.

[Ceebs]

Good lord, are we still on about this? 😐

[overturn overturn overturn]

1 minute ago, Knight of Cydonia said:

Dogs are one of the oldest examples of this. When I asked how you felt about dogs because they were developed via selective breeding, you quoted the bible talking negatively about them, saying "if it's written, it's written for a reason". So I can only assume that means you believe that dogs are unnatural, and you feel negatively towards them. Is that true or not? If it's true, then you should logically feel the same about everything else created through selective breeding - some other of the oldest examples being wheat, rice, and maize. If it's not true, then what was the point of posting the bible verse?

We don't see sense why you are putting your own thoughts and words in our mouth? What kind of violence is this???

 

We are giving facts, what you are trying to do with the facts, directioning them in something what we don't think or say???

 

What a blackmail is this????  Who are you to improvise all, based on your own ways of thinking and understanding???

 

Speak in own name what you think, don't put your thoughts and conclusions in our own mouth!!!

[The Dryad]

1 minute ago, HayaH said:

We don't see sense why you are putting your own thoughts and words in our mouth? What kind of violence is this???

 

We are giving facts, what you are trying to do with the facts, directioning them in something what we don't think or say???

 

What a blackmail is this????  Who are you to improvise all, based on your own ways of thinking and understanding???

 

Speak in own name what you think, don't put your thoughts and conclusions in our own mouth!!!

 

8 minutes ago, Knight of Cydonia said:

That's not what I asked. I wasn't asking about how you feel about plants and animals mixing, I know that already. I was asking for clarification about when you said "One thing is having natural variations, other thing is cause an intentional variation in scientific way. It's unnatural." People have been causing "intentional variation" in scientific ways for thousands of years, through the practice of selective breeding.

 

Dogs are one of the oldest examples of this. When I asked how you felt about dogs because they were developed via selective breeding, you quoted the bible talking negatively about them, saying "if it's written, it's written for a reason". So I can only assume that means you believe that dogs are unnatural, and you feel negatively towards them. Is that true or not? If it's true, then you should logically feel the same about everything else created through selective breeding - some other of the oldest examples being wheat, rice, and maize. If it's not true, then what was the point of posting the bible verse, and why wouldn't you just say "selective breeding is fine, my issue is with mixing the genes of plants and animals"?

I was asking myself the same thing, why did you post that particular Biblical verse if you didn't intend that meaning? 

 

How is a Bible verse about not offering God cheap offerings even relevant to this issue of genetic manipulation unless you were referring "the lowness of dogs" or the breeding of dogs?

[overturn overturn overturn]

15 minutes ago, The Dryad said:

 

 

How is a Bible verse about not offering God cheap offerings even relevant to this issue of genetic manipulation unless you were referring "the lowness of dogs" or the breeding of dogs?

Simply, God is not breeding the dogs, it's human will to do it. He did not forbid it (since it's between same specie), he just don't like interfering in genetic intentionally, as mankind does interfere.

And he said it in Deuteronomy, in own way. 

 

Edit: other person started about dogs. We don't see it relevant too much to our topic, except to give the facts what is written.

[The Dryad]

1 minute ago, HayaH said:

Simply, God is not breeding the dogs, it's human will to do it. He did not forbid it (since it's between same specie), he just don't like interfering in genetic intentionally, as mankind does interfere.

And he said it in Deuteronomy, in own way. 

This verse doesn't even talk about genetic manipulation since that's the reason you gave for posting it.

[overturn overturn overturn]

1 minute ago, The Dryad said:

This verse doesn't even talk about genetic manipulation since that's the reason you gave for posting it.

We don't owe you explanations of things written in the Bible. What you want, is not clear at all.

If someone is intelligent, he will see connections from our examples, accept it or leave it. About what you all are arguing, we don't see point.

 

All what is required here, is to give your point of view, adding it to ours. And leave it to others to judge and accept what they want.

 

[Sally]

1 hour ago, The Dryad said:

This verse means that God is not cheap, and to give him a vow/money that is cheap is disrespectful to Him.

 

Which literally makes no sense in retrospect to dog breeding according to human intent.

The actual translation of the Hebrew means not "dog", but male prostitute.  

[overturn overturn overturn]

But what all of you is ''you are not right', you speak nonsense, you think this, you think that''

 

What is with your mind and intelligence? Who says that thinking, and giving remarks is not right?

 

Leave your remarks without judging. If you have different perspectives, speak in your name. 

[The Dryad]

10 minutes ago, HayaH said:

We don't owe you explanations of things written in the Bible. What you want, is not clear at all.

If someone is intelligent, he will see connections from our examples, accept it or leave it. About what you all are arguing, we don't see point.

 

All what is required here, is to give your point of view, adding it to ours. And leave it to others to judge and accept what they want.

 

I can read the verse for myself, and it still makes no sense why you posted it, arguably we don't see your point, which is counterproductive to you...since that's the whole point of this post, persuade people into thinking your argument makes sense.

[overturn overturn overturn]

7 minutes ago, The Dryad said:

I can read the verse for myself, and it still makes no sense why you posted it, arguably we don't see your point, which is counterproductive to you...since that's the whole point of this post, persuade people into thinking your argument makes sense.

Actually it has a sense, because there are more examples about God's attitude toward dogs. In Revelation, etc. But we won't speak about it, we don't see it relevant with our topic. 

 

Attack the person who included dogs in this discussion, where it was nothing mentioned about it, in our starting post. 

 

 

[The Dryad]

1 minute ago, HayaH said:

Actually it has a sense, because there are more examples about God's attitude toward dogs. In Revelation, etc. But we won't speak about it, we don't see it relevant with our topic. 

 

Attack the person who included dogs in this discussion, where it was nothing mentioned about it, in our starting post. 

 

 

No one's attacking anyone for one, and the person who mentioned dogs was asking you on your stance on selective breeding which makes a whole lot more sense.

[overturn overturn overturn]

Just now, The Dryad said:

No one's attacking anyone for one, and the person who mentioned dogs was asking you on your stance on selective breeding which makes a whole lot more sense.

As we answered, our post is pointing only at the crossing genes between two different kinds of living (animal x plants, human x plants, human x animals) it's creating degenerations. And danger in future of new diseases.

And who is responsible for it?

[Knight of Cydonia]

32 minutes ago, HayaH said:

What you want, is not clear at all.

I'm not sure how to make what I asked in the first place any clearer. I asked: "I'm curious, do you see things like dogs as "unnatural"? Dogs have been selectively bred since prehistory. That's not "natural variation" but rather intentional, caused by human intervention, to get particular traits out of different breeds."

 

The reason I wanted to know was to clarify if there are kinds of intentional variations that you are okay with, or if you only okay with totally natural ones. Dogs are a well known example of selective breeding as well as one of the oldest, which is why I used them.

 

You could have given a yes or no answer. Instead you answered with a bible verse about "dogs" and prostitutes, saying there was "complaint written in Bible about it" and that "if it's written, it's written with a reason". Can you see why we're having a problem interpreting what you meant by that? Why your answer could be interpreted as you being against selective breeding? I even asked you above to clarify if this was the case, and you chose to answer that post by calling me out for being violent and blackmailing you...

 

10 minutes ago, HayaH said:

Attack the person who included dogs in this discussion, where it was nothing mentioned about it, in our starting post. 

How about let's not call for attacks on anyone in this thread...

 

[The Dryad]

2 minutes ago, HayaH said:

As we answered, our post is pointing only at the crossing genes between two different kinds of living (animal x plants, human x plants, human x animals) it's creating degenerations. And danger in future of new diseases.

And who is responsible for it?

I agreed with you on that point, all I wanted for verification of why you used that Biblical verse.

[Cobie]

26 minutes ago, Sally said:

The actual translation of the Hebrew means not "dog", but male prostitute.  

I love these posts of yours, good information. Thanks.

[A shard of glass]

Ok, so genetic abominations? Creating animals by mixing genes? Ummm... Sure *Cracks knuckles angrily in my speciality was genetics*

 

So, firstly, I would recommend that you read the "species concept", it's a simple definition that describes how different species are different to each other. But in essence: If 2 individuals can mate to create a fertile offspring, then they are the same species. If not, they're a different species. (This is very general, but it explains how a "liger" can exist, but how lions and tigers are different species).

 

Another thing to note: Bananas have triploid cells, as a direct result of this, only ~1/300 bananas are fertile and capable of creating a new banana tree. GM/GE (Genetically modified/genetically engineered) organisms can be made/created by combining DNA from different individuals, however they have to be *VERY* similar genetically in terms of genetic structure and all that stuff. For example: the "Geep"/"shoat", was a hybrid (NOT fertile) of sheep and goat DNA. Sheep and goats are within the same genus, but are NOT the same species. Let's look at how taxonomy (not a strong point for me) works:

 

-Kingdom

-Phylum

-Class

-Order

-Order

-Family

-Genus

-Species

-Sub species

 

Different members of a sub species are able to produce fertile offspring, but members of the same genus (not the same species) are not able to.

In the case of the "Geep"/"shoat", offspring from a sheepxgoat tend to be stillborn, and are NEVER fertile, thus unable to reproduce. Another thing to note is that sheep and goats have a slightly different genetic structure: sheep have 54 chromosomes while goats have 60. They have a different genetic structure, so the DNA is unlikely to bind properly, this will result in cells being unable to develop or divide properly. As a result of the inability to divide cells causes tissues to be unable to replace cells that have died. No single cell survives the entire natural lifespan of the organism, some are especially short-lived (eg erythrocytes living only 3 months, partially due to the lack of a nucleus, whereas in epithelial cells (such as those found in the gut) only live for a few days usually). Let's look at the bananas and peacocks: Bananas are relatively genetically simple, but they have a bit of a twist to their simplicity. As mentioned before, they are triploid, meaning that yes, they have 33 chromosomes, they don't have chromosome pairs, but chromosome triplets. But a peacock? they have 76 chromosomes. So regular breeding isn't an option at all for these 2. So there's genetic modification. GM stuff has only really been achieved successfully within the past 50 years (I believe the first successful experiment was done in 1973?) which involved a VERY basic technique of moving a single gene from one bacterium to another. It's a very simple technique that involves finding the desired gene, isolating it, removing it from the genetic "loop" of DNA that bacteria has (bacteria are even more simple genetically, they have no chromosomes, they just have a ring of DNA, kinda like how Mr Men books don't have chapters, but Harry Potter books do. You can treat chromosomes as "chapters" in the same sense that books are... To an extent, but let's not get into that). This technique cannot be used to insert genes that govern pigmentation (especially complex pigmentation like in a peacock) from a plant to an animal. Ok, let's have a look at the most advanced technique that's pretty much JUST hit the "market" within the past 18 months: CRISPR-cas9. I vaguely remember how it works, but cas9 is an enzyme that is used to check the DNA of a bacterium to hunt out viruses which would otherwise be especially lethal to a bacterium. The cas-9 enzyme checks the DNA loop against a copy to check that it's all good. If not, then the cas-9 enzyme pretty much just cuts out the "non-own" DNA from the DNA loop. Something like that. This technique I don't think has been used successfully yet, but I think it's currently undergoing trials. As far as I'm aware, CRISPR-cas9 is most likely going to be used to remove undesired genetic information.

 

Any questions?

[overturn overturn overturn]

2 minutes ago, The Dryad said:

I agreed with you on that point, all I wanted for verification of why you used that Biblical verse.

Simply we can give the fact about all what is mentioned in the Bible, metaphorically or literally about dogs. And it reveals that God has not so kind attitude toward this human project of breeding or as behavior of males (our personal understanding). This is the first source where we look. If there was nothing about dogs, we can't examine possibilities of the meaning.

Now when someone mentioned it, we saw connection, and we quoted it as the fact, what Bible says about dogs.

 

We don't see why mentioning of Bible verse was not informing.

[fuzzipueo]

1 hour ago, HayaH said:

There is complaint written in Bible about it:

You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a dog into the house of  your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are an abomination to your God. (Deuteronomy 23:18)

 

If it's written, it's written with a reason.

According to BibleHub, this verse actually refers to bringing the wages of prostitution into the temple/church/etc. In this case the term dog actually refers to male/homosexual prostitutes and has nothing to do with genetics or really anything you're talking about.

 

Quote

https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/23-18.htm

Verse  (Click for Chapter)

New International Version
You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both.

New Living Translation
When you are bringing an offering to fulfill a vow, you must not bring to the house of the LORD your God any offering from the earnings of a prostitute, whether a man or a woman, for both are detestable to the LORD your God.

English Standard Version
You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a dog into the house of the LORD your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God.

Berean Study Bible
You must not bring the wages of a prostitute, whether female or male, into the house of the LORD your God to fulfill any vow, because both are detestable to the LORD your God.

New American Standard Bible
"You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog into the house of the LORD your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God.

King James Bible
Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Christian Standard Bible
Do not bring a female prostitute's wages or a male prostitute's earnings into the house of the LORD your God to fulfill any vow, because both are detestable to the LORD your God.

Contemporary English Version
The LORD your God is disgusted with men and women who are prostitutes of any kind, and he will not accept a gift from them, even if it had been promised to him.

...

etc.

 

A clearer discussion of this verse can be found here: https://rcg.org/questions/p083.a.html

[The Dryad]

1 minute ago, HayaH said:

Simply we can give the fact about all what is mentioned in the Bible, metaphorically or literally about dogs. And it reveals that God has not so kind attitude toward this human project of breeding or as behavior of males (our personal understanding). This is the first source where we look. If there was nothing about dogs, we can't examine possibilities of the meaning.

Now when someone mentioned it, we saw connection, and we quoted it as the fact, what Bible says about dogs.

 

We don't see why mentioning of Bible verse was not informing.

@Sally said that the Hebrew translation of dogs means male prostitutes, which still supports what I read as God not wanting an offering of "unclean" wealth, something not honorable and dirty, and cheap. (🙃Thanks Sally 💜, 🍰)

 

I'm thinking you just googled the first Bible verse that contained the word "dog" in it to argue against the person who asked you about your opinion on selective breeding, but it didn't work out because of the meaning of the verse, and you're trying to make up for it.