Cloning Jesus

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2003-07-06 07:07pm

Old Article, but still amusing.
http://www.mcjonline.com/news/00b/20001013b.htm

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-07-06 07:27pm

Of course, if the baby is totally normal, it utterly crushes the whole basis of Modern Christianity. Of course, if you wanna get technical, Jesus never said he was the Son of God, so...

Sindai · Post by **Sindai** » 2003-07-06 07:52pm

Isn't there a webcomic based on this? They clone Jesus, and he has miracluous powers and everything...only he's about two hundred pounds overweight? I think there is.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-06 07:57pm

There was an New Outer Limits episode made about this that had some company cloning Jesus from the Shroud of Turin (yes, I know, you're rolling your eyes). The baby clone had powerful psychic abilities, which was explained to be how Jesus made himself appear divine.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-07-06 07:57pm

The female mother would not have to be a virgin, but it would be an immaculate conception. December 25, 2001 has been targeted as the day the cloned baby would be born, Fox reported.

Oops!

Besides, being the miracle of virgin birth that He was, Jesus would probably be genetically female...

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-07-06 08:34pm

Seems like a pretty old story. 2000?

Wasn't the Shroud of Turin shown as a fake? Where are they going to get the blood then?

I can already see a bunch of fundies screaming that the baby will be the Anti-christ

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-07-06 09:34pm

Exonerate wrote:Wasn't the Shroud of Turin shown as a fake? Where are they going to get the blood then?

The shroud was declared a fake by the Catholic Church centuries ago. A bishop even claimed to have met the artist who painted it.
If nothing else, the fact that the reverse images aren't the same size should tell even the most ardent believer in it that something's wrong with the fucking thing!

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-07-06 10:19pm

Exonerate wrote:Seems like a pretty old story. 2000?

Wasn't the Shroud of Turin shown as a fake? Where are they going to get the blood then?

I can already see a bunch of fundies screaming that the baby will be the Anti-christ

From me. Because:

[Darth God]I am his father.[/Darth God]

Sindai · Post by **Sindai** » 2003-07-06 10:26pm

Exonerate wrote:Wasn't the Shroud of Turin shown as a fake? Where are they going to get the blood then?

I beleve that part of the shroud was carbon-dated and - surprise - it was found to date back to the time when it first turned up in Europe, over a thousand years after Christ's death.

Of course, I've also heard people claim that that was an error, and that the dating accidentally found the age some some skin/cloth flakes that had become embedded in the shroud or something like that.

Majin Gojira · Post by **Majin Gojira** » 2003-07-07 10:56am

Their's always an excuse...

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-07-07 12:35pm

Same thing I posted regarding this topic on SB:

If someone somehow found DNA of Jesus, which is likely impossible, and they were able to create a viable clone from said DNA, then they would create a clone with a separate spirit, not that of Christ -- can't clone spirits or souls, which have not physical properties, and thus are not provable with the scientific method. Moreover, the clone likely wouldn't even look like Jesus, for remember that the cloned kitties looked nothing alike -- having completely different fur patterns. Then there is the whole survivability issue of cloned beings, which so far have a poor track record...

See this article about myths on cloning.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-07-07 02:01pm

jegs2 wrote:Same thing I posted regarding this topic on SB:

If someone somehow found DNA of Jesus, which is likely impossible, and they were able to create a viable clone from said DNA, then they would create a clone with a separate spirit, not that of Christ -- can't clone spirits or souls, which have not physical properties, and thus are not provable with the scientific method. Moreover, the clone likely wouldn't even look like Jesus, for remember that the cloned kitties looked nothing alike -- having completely different fur patterns. Then there is the whole survivability issue of cloned beings, which so far have a poor track record...

See this article about myths on cloning.

Not Really, since Twins, which are Natural Clones, do look alike. It's just that their fingerprints wouldn't be the same, their iris patterns wouldn't be the same, just stuff like that. At first glance, and second, and maybe third, the clone and the original would look the same (This is assuming that the cloning process works perfectly)

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-07-07 02:15pm

jegs2 wrote:Same thing I posted regarding this topic on SB:

If someone somehow found DNA of Jesus, which is likely impossible, and they were able to create a viable clone from said DNA, then they would create a clone with a separate spirit, not that of Christ -- can't clone spirits or souls, which have not physical properties, and thus are not provable with the scientific method. Moreover, the clone likely wouldn't even look like Jesus, for remember that the cloned kitties looked nothing alike -- having completely different fur patterns. Then there is the whole survivability issue of cloned beings, which so far have a poor track record...

See this article about myths on cloning.

Jegs are you then saying that humans can create souls?? Because clones would not be part of the natural process of reproduction, where is the soul cominig from, or has God given his tacit approval to cloning by allowing souls to go into clones as well.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2003-07-07 02:17pm

Exonerate wrote:Seems like a pretty old story. 2000?

Wasn't the Shroud of Turin shown as a fake? Where are they going to get the blood then?

I can already see a bunch of fundies screaming that the baby will be the Anti-christ

Because my calculus book said so.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-07-07 02:31pm

Stravo wrote:Jegs are you then saying that humans can create souls?? Because clones would not be part of the natural process of reproduction, where is the soul cominig from, or has God given his tacit approval to cloning by allowing souls to go into clones as well.

No, I don't believe we can -- God has control over that (and all things spiritual). I think I've recently heard that we are incapable of cloning humans anyway -- someone can correct me if I'm amiss. My point was that the soul would be different in a clone (assuming that cloning humans becomes a reality), thus the person would also be different. We cannot clone souls, even if we can find a way to successfully clone bodies. If we somehow cloned Mike, the clone of Mike would be subjected to different experiences and stimuli, thus creating a uniquely different individual with a different soul. As the article I posted pointed out, such has already been observed in cloned animals.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-07-07 02:34pm

jegs2 wrote:
Stravo wrote:Jegs are you then saying that humans can create souls?? Because clones would not be part of the natural process of reproduction, where is the soul cominig from, or has God given his tacit approval to cloning by allowing souls to go into clones as well.
No, I don't believe we can -- God has control over that (and all things spiritual). I think I've recently heard that we are incapable of cloning humans anyway -- someone can correct me if I'm amiss. My point was that the soul would be different in a clone (assuming that cloning humans becomes a reality), thus the person would also be different. We cannot clone souls, even if we can find a way to successfully clone bodies. If we somehow cloned Mike, the clone of Mike would be subjected to different experiences and stimuli, thus creating a uniquely different individual with a different soul. As the article I posted pointed out, such has already been observed in cloned animals.

I agree that the soul would indeed be different, but IF we could clone a human and as far as I know that is something that is possible but not doable under our current technology what would that say about souls or the process itself? The Church has had on its agenda a blanket dispaproval of cloning of human tissue and as is typical with the church take the ban so far as to deny cloning of human tiossue even for medical purposes like cloninig tissues for organ donation.

But IF we did clone and the clone was viable and normal, that would mean that souls can be invested into human creations.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-07-07 03:19pm

Stravo wrote:But IF we did clone and the clone was viable and normal, that would mean that souls can be invested into human creations.

My belief is that that particular soul would be from God, as his knowedge and power is outside both time and the physical universe. As per the term, "creation," are not clones developed from already present cells? By that, I mean so far as I am aware, we are yet unable to create even the most simple cells from scratch. It seems as though we are more manipulating an already present form of creation, rather than "creating" it.

Stormin · Post by **Stormin** » 2003-07-07 07:44pm

if they cloned jesus, he could solve an age old debate for us.
Does he really want us to kill the gay baby whales?

Wedge · Post by **Wedge** » 2003-07-07 08:41pm

Exonerate wrote: I can already see a bunch of fundies screaming that the baby will be the Anti-christ

Hehehe
Imagine only for a moment, that *somehow* they get the DNA of Jesus and *somehow* clone him and that this kid would have all this *superpowers*, he could rule the world at his wish.

LT.Hit-Man · Post by **LT.Hit-Man** » 2003-07-08 02:30am

innerbrat wrote:
The female mother would not have to be a virgin, but it would be an immaculate conception. December 25, 2001 has been targeted as the day the cloned baby would be born, Fox reported.
Oops!

Besides, being the miracle of virgin birth that He was, Jesus would probably be genetically female...

No I don't think so unless the blood sample that they are going to implant into the egg that will be carried by this virgin that they picked for this is a female blood sample and is still vivable.

Grand Moff Yenchin · Post by **Grand Moff Yenchin** » 2003-07-08 04:26am

Jesus's DNA? These guys claim to have a blood sample, and yes, that's just one of their *ahem* "great discoveries"......

Edit: "blood" sample....though it seems they analyzed the chromosomes....and no, I'm not convinced by them.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-07-08 04:34am

A Christian could always contend that since (in most Christian belief) Jesus was BOTH God and Man, cloning him (if that were possible) would only lead to the human "person" being cloned, not the God person.

How could you clone a God that was/is pure spirit? (<--- leave that to Treknobabble)

I'm sure that website wasn't the first one to suggest cloning Jesus (there have been people trying to clone Dracula for awhile... and then there's the Raliens.. but I think we can all surmise that these are merely publicity stunts), but most people I talked to believe that even if a woman were to concieve a child without intercourse that wouldn't make her baby, Jesus (even if no sperm was used... ie: we can already do "virgin births" by use of artificial insemination or implantation of a test tube baby, etc).

PS: The belief that Jesus was the Son of God (in regards to the above that he "never claimed to be) comes not only from early Christian tradition, but also from the part where God says "thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased..." along with the opening to John's Gospel which talks about the Word "was with God, and the Word was God... and the Word became flesh" etc... ie: the Logos, the Word is interpreted to be Jesus as existing with God, being God himself, and then being incarnated as a human being).

Jesus also fails to correct Peter who calls him "...the Son of the Living God" to his face.

The New Testament clearly says Jesus is the Son of God. That he never specifically says in the text, "Hey, I'm the Son of God" thus isn't needed for the believer.

And finally, a nitpick, from an old post of mine:

Im·mac·u·late Conception n.

Roman Catholic Church. The doctrine that the Virgin Mary was conceived free from all stain of original sin.

Immaculate \Im*mac"u*late\, a. [L. immaculatus; pref. im- not + maculatus, p. p. of maculare to spot, stane, fr. macula spot. See Mail armor.] Without stain or blemish; spotless; undefiled; clear; pure.

What you guys are thinking of is the virgin birth. If you want a fancy term for it, try parthenogenesis. ; )

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-07-08 07:40am

LT.Hit-Man wrote:
innerbrat wrote:
The female mother would not have to be a virgin, but it would be an immaculate conception. December 25, 2001 has been targeted as the day the cloned baby would be born, Fox reported.
Oops!

Besides, being the miracle of virgin birth that He was, Jesus would probably be genetically female...
No I don't think so unless the blood sample that they are going to implant into the egg that will be carried by this virgin that they picked for this is a female blood sample and is still vivable.

nope - you missed by point. Not having a human father, the original Jesus would be a genetic copy of his virgin mother, Mary, but was miraculously born a seeming male (ahh, miracles) despite not having a Y chromosome.

(Kurgan, yes I saw your post, but this is too much fun)

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-08 07:50am

Stravo wrote:
Jegs are you then saying that humans can create souls?? Because clones would not be part of the natural process of reproduction, where is the soul cominig from, or has God given his tacit approval to cloning by allowing souls to go into clones as well.

If it has all the physical attributes of a clone, which is no different from the original than an identical twin, we are faced with these possibilities:

1. All humans have souls, thus, clones have souls as well.

2. All humans do not have souls, rendering the question irrelevant.

3. Clones in particular do not have souls, meaning one twin in a pair of identical twins would not have a soul, either.

Please choose one and adopt it as your doctrine, Christians, instead of flailing about stupidly. There is a solution here, but it means either accepting cloning, or excommunicating random halves of pairs of identical twins from your churches. I do not mean this insultingly, but I'm just saying that doctrine has to keep up with science or else you'll be rendered irrelevant.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-07-08 08:05am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: If it has all the physical attributes of a clone, which is no different from the original than an identical twin, we are faced with these possibilities:

1. All humans have souls, thus, clones have souls as well.

2. All humans do not have souls, rendering the question irrelevant.

3. Clones in particular do not have souls, meaning one twin in a pair of identical twins would not have a soul, either.

Please choose one and adopt it as your doctrine, Christians, instead of flailing about stupidly. There is a solution here, but it means either accepting cloning, or excommunicating random halves of pairs of identical twins from your churches. I do not mean this insultingly, but I'm just saying that doctrine has to keep up with science or else you'll be rendered irrelevant.

Maybe, because God separates the twins Himself, He creates a new soul then.
*shrug*