cb.blog

Blog

  • Crown FS Week 2, Days 1-6

    Crown Financial Ministries Small Group Biblical Financial Study, Week Two: God’s Part/Our Part

    Scripture to memorize:

    Everything in the heavens and on earth is yours, O Lord, and this is your kingdom. We adore you as being in control of everything. Riches and honor come from you alone, and you are the ruler of all mankind; Your hand controls power and might, and at your discretion men are made great and given strength.

    I Chronicles 29:11-12 (TLB)

    Day One:

    Read the Introduction Notes on pages 10 and 11 and answer.

    1. What information especially interested you?

    The notes in general, in light of Jim’s message this past weekend regarding worshipping God with our money.

    2. comment on any personal challenges you felt after learning the three reasons the Bible says so much about money.

    The three reasons given:

    1. How we handle our money influences our fellowship with the Lord
    2. Possessions compete with the Lord for first place in our lives
    3. Much of life revolves around the use of money

    A good question to ask myself always is: “am I being faithful with the small things?” I think I am, generally. But the small things are also the ones easiest to overlook. I find that I get in the most trouble whenever I start overlooking the small things. I don’t think I have a problem letting money or materialism compete with God for first place in my life. I’d be perfectly happy living in a hut up in the mountains in Mexico – in fact, I look forward to the day when I can do just that.

    Day Two:

    Read Deuteronomy 10:14, Psalm 24:1, and I Corinthians 10:26 and answer.

    1. What do these passages teach about the ownership of your possessions?

    I don’t own anything – everything belongs to God.

    1. God makes us stewards – we are given responsibility for the use and care – of thigns, but He retains ownership.
    2. I belong to God. I am a steward of my faculties and abilities, but God is responsible for my survival and well-being.

    Read Leviticus 25:23, Psalm 50:10-12, and Haggai 2:8.

    2. What are some of the specific items that the Lord owns?

    Leviticus 25:23

    The land (we are but aliens and tennants)

    Psalm 50:10-12

    • Every animal of the forest
    • The cattle on a thousand hills
    • (“I know…”) Every bird in the mountains
    • The creatures of the field
    • The world, and all that is in it

    Haggai 2:8

    The silver, the gold

    3. Prayerfully evaluate your attitude of ownership toward your possessions. Do you consistently recognize the true owner of those possessions? Give two practical suggestions to help recognize God’s ownership.

    • Praying I Chronicles 29:11-12 and other Scripture emphasizing God’s ownership and our stewardship
    • Be even more giving

    Day Three:

    Read I Chronicles 29:11-12 and Psalm 125:6.

    1. What do these verses say about the Lord’s control of circumstances?

    God is in control of everything. All things happen at His discretion. We exist in His kingdom. God has the power, ability, and wisdom to do whatever He pleases.

    Read Proverbs 21:1, Isaiah 40:21-24, and Acts 17:26.

    2. What do these passages tell you about the Lord’s control of people?

    Proverbs 21:1

    God controls the hearts of the leaders He puts in place. He directs their hearts as He pleases.

    Isaiah 40:21-24

    God controls eternally that which exists temporally

    Acts 17:26

    God made all nations from one man. God determined the times set for every nation of men. God determined the exact places where every nation would live.

    3. Do you normally recognize the Lord’s control of all events? If not, how can you become more consistent in recognizing His control?

    Normally, I do recognize – or, more correctly, acknowledge – God’s control of all events. We can’t always recognize the means or evidence of God’s control, since His ways are higher than our ways, but acknowledgement of His control is a matter of choice. To be more consistent, I can meditate more on such Scriptures as Romans 8:28.

    Day Four:

    Read Genesis 45:4-8, Genesis 50:19-20, and Romans 8:28.

    1. Why is it important to realize that God controls and uses even difficult circumstances for good in the life of a godly person?

    Perspective: we rarely can see the “big picture” of God’s eternal perspective. If we allow ourselves to become mired in the tyranny of momentary circumstances, we risk losing hope, and so act out of fear rather than out of faith.

    2. How does this perspective impact you today?

    “This too shall pass.” “Do not worry about what you will eat or what you will wear.” “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, and with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.”

    3. Share a difficult circumstance you have experienced and how the Lord ultimately used it for good in your life.

    Being engaged, having the greatest desires of my heart – a wife and family – and then having the relationship end. I don’t yet know fully how the Lord will ultimately use it for good in my life, but these things I do know:

    • I know what it means to love to the point of dying to self for the sake of another
    • I know the true meaning of sacrifice
    • I have learned utter reliance upon and faith in God to sustain me in every circumstance

      Day Five:

      Read Psalm 34:9-10, Matthew 6:31-33, and Philippians 4:19.

      1. What has the Lord promised about meeting your needs?

      Those who fear the Lord will lack nothing. Those who seek the Lord will lack no good thing. We are responsible for seeking God and His kingdom, and He will provide for our needs. God will (and is able to) meet all our needs according to His glorious riches in Christ Jesus

      2. From the Bible, give an example of the Lord providing for someone’s needs in a supernatural way.

      Elijah fed by ravens (I Kings 17:1-5). Elijah and the widow at Zarephath (I Kings 17:6-15). The feeding of the 4,000/5,000 (Matthew 14-15). All Jesus’ healing miracles.

      3. How does this apply to you today?

      I have never gone hungry (to the point of starvation), thirsty (to the point of dehydration), naked or homeless

      Day Six:

      Read I Corinthians 4:2.

      1. According to this verse what is your requirement as a steward?

      We must prove faithful. We must demonstrate our worthiness both to receive the trust, and to handle that trust properly. We are entrusted with something as an investment, and must prove faithful to provide a return on that investment.

      2. How would you define a steward?

      One entrusted with authority over and responsibility for – but not ownership of – something.

      Read Luke 16:1-2.

      3. Why did the master remove the steward from his position?

      For wasting the master’s possessions. For being unable to give a worthy account of his management.

      Read Luke 16:10

      4. Describe the principle found in this verse.

      Trustworthiness is a matter of character. It is an intensive characteristic of a person. That is, it does not change according to the size of the trust.

      5. How does this apply in your situation?

      Reality check! How faithful am I with the “little things”? Where do I need to grow or change my character to be more trustworthy?

      I will take the following action as a result of this week’s study:

      I will become more conscientious about the “small things”, and develop the discipline to remain faithful with those small things. I will begin tracking and recording everything I spend.

    • OYB February 21

      Today´s reading:
      OT: Leviticus 11, Leviticus 12
      NT: Mark 5:21-43
      Ps: Psalm 38
      Pr: Proverbs 10:8-9

      Today´s notable verse:

      44 I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves about on the ground. 45 I am the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.

      Leviticus 11:44-45 (NIV)

      I think this whole section on clean versus unclean animals (food) comes down to this point: consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Remember, the Mosaic Law was an imperfect type, shadow, and symbol of God’s Perfect Law. Now, certainly, several practical reasons for avoiding those animals regarded as unclean existed: the science of the day knew nothing of pathogens. However, I think the primary reason for the differentiation between clean and unclean was simply to demonstrate to the Israelites the principle of consecration – setting themselves apart from the uncleanliness of sin in order to pursue the cleanliness of holiness and to approach the Holy God. Christ sums up this concept:

      10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11 What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’ ” …17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’ 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what make a man ‘unclean’; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him ‘unclean.’ “

      Matthew 15:10-20 (NIV)

      Thus, for the Israelites, the physical act of separating clean and unclean animals was intended to direct their hearts to separate between holy and sinful thoughts and attitudes.

      The One Year Bible Blog asks:

      Comments from You & Question of the Day – Related to this Proverb above, I read an article recently about how “small talk” is getting more and more prevalent in our world today… Do you think that some of our small talk is simply babbling?

      Sure it is. Aside from the obvious voyeuristic appeal of “reality television” is its utter lack of anything meaningful or significant. I don’t really get into much discussion about such things. Apparently, the winter Olympics are going on, but I’ve not watched a single minute of coverage. I think there’s a time and place for diversion solely for its own sake, but it should be much more limited than it is in our culture today. I am reminded of two principles:

      1) we are to be wise with the use of our time:

      15 Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil.

      Ephesians 5:15-16 (NIV)

      2) our words indicate our thoughts, and our thoughts have a higher calling:

      Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

      Philippians 4:8 (NIV)

      Quite simply, we really just don’t have time for idle chatter!

    • On Smoking

      Chris Phillips comments on the proposed smoking ban in Greenwood, IN.

      I don’t know who I need to tell this to, but this is a start. Smokers, I believe you should be allowed to smoke in bars and areas of restaurants. But please, do us all a favor, please don’t throw your butts on OUR streets and roads.

      Agree, disagree? Link to this post, get people to think about this!

      I’m a non-smoker, but I’m all for the right of people to smoke. I’m also all for the right of private establishments to set their own rules regarding smoking. The government has no business telling bars, restaurants, or any other private establishment what those rules must be. If I don’t like the experience in an establishment that allows smoking, then I will exercise my right to express myself with both my feet and my pocketbook, and take my patronage elsewhere.

      However, non-smokers have equal right to expect clean air in *public* places. I can’t stand the “smokers’ gauntlet” getting into or out of a building on a cold day. Y’all know what I’m talking about. Thus, I have no problem with – and even support – laws prohibiting smoking within a reasonable distance from building entrances.

      Finally, as much as I support smokers’ right to light up, it disturbs me to no end how often I observe smokers to be among some of the most inconsiderate people anywhere. If you want to smoke, it is your responsibility to clean up after yourself, and to dispose properly of your cigarette butts. And your right to smoke does not supercede MY right to breathe air free of smoke. Try standing farther away from the door that smokers and non-smokers alike must use. Keep your ash to yourself, don’t let your smoke waft directly in my face, and don’t exhale your smoke in my direction when at all possible. I’d prefer not to have either the first- or second-hand experience, thanks.

    • OYB February 20

      Today´s reading:
      OT: Leviticus 9:7-24, Leviticus 10
      NT: Mark 4:26-41, Mark 5:1-20
      Ps: Psalm 37:30-40
      Pr: Proverbs 10:6-7

      Today´s notable verse:

      30 The mouth of the righteous man utters wisdom,
      and his tongue speaks what is just.
      31 The law of his God is in his heart;
      his feet do not slip.

      Psalm 37:30-31 (NIV)

      Wow, what a testament that would be – that everything I utter with my tongue would be wise and just! I am also reminded of Ephesians 4:29: Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. The key to applying this principle in our lives is found in the second verse: “The law of his God is in his heart, and also James 1:19: …Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry… I think, in light of these verses, I will be more cognizant of what I think to say, and weigh it more carefully before I actually say it.

      The One Year Bible Blog asks:

      Comments from You & Question of the Day – What do you think of my farming analogies in the NT reflections above? Has our modern world forgotten about some of the ways of farming the land? Have we forgotten that we reap what we sow? Have we lost our patience, to the point where we will not even wait for the harvest to come in at its appointed time? Are we trying to control things in our modern day life that aren’t controllable? Such as the “pace” at which a seed grows into a plant and a plant into a full harvest? In losing some of our knowledge of farming and growing, are we at risk of losing ourselves?

      I have never been a farmer, but I grew up in a farming community, my house was surrounded by corn and soy fields, and I had family members who were farmers. Farming really applies many of God’s principles in very practical ways: reaping what we sow, patience, the concept of seasons, storing up in times of plenty to be ready for lean times, “if a man will not work he should not eat”, the harvest concept, etc.

      Farmers are some of the best people I know; they epitomize “salt of the earth.” The American farmer represents “rugged individualism”, yet with an absolute dependence upon and acknowledgement of God’s grace providence in everything.

      We all too often have left behind the farming mindset, and in so doing we retain the “rugged individualism” yet lose its context. Self-reliance replaces dependence upon God’s grace, and self-recognition and pride replace our acknowledgement of God’s providence. Devoid of our understanding that life progresses in seasons and that everything has a time and place appointed, we lose our virtue of patience and the discipline of waiting on God – instead worshipping the gods of convenience and instant gratification.

      In many ways I’ve gotten soft since leaving home for college. It used to be nothing to get up at 5:00 AM – actually, it was my favorite time of the day. Now, 6:15 is a struggle.

    • Carnival of the Cats: Century Edition

      Carnival of the Cats #100 has been posted, and I am linked with this post.

    • Early: The New “Embryonic”

      Rebecca Taylor of Mary Meets Dolly links to this Kansas City Star article:

      Missouri’s cloning war came to the Capitol on Thursday when two Washington University scientists wrangled over research on early stem cells and the laboratory techniques used to grow them.

      …

      The two men, both respected researchers, offered their competing viewpoints during a forum at the Missouri Press Association’s Day at the Capitol.

      Rebecca makes a great point about the following:

      The conclusion? It comes down to whether you view the cells created by the process to be a person.

      Steven Teitelbaum, a professor who supports the initiative petition that would protect stem-cell research in Missouri, said he believes that cells in a Petri dish are not persons. But science, he said, cannot answer the question.

      “It depends on your religious tradition, your ethics, the feeling in your gut…” Teitelbaum said. “When does a soul come into the body, if at all? Clearly, no one knows that.”

      Richard Chole, a fellow professor who opposes the initiative, said he believes that a human being is formed at the moment of conception or the moment that a person’s skin cell is copied through cloning techniques. Taking the stem cells that develop, he said, essentially kills a developing human.

      “A line should be drawn,” Chole said, “at the point we are destroying a human life.”

      Rebecca’s take:

      Teitelbaum is correct that there is no way to scientifically prove when the soul enters the body. And different religions hold differing beliefs. We Catholics believe that the soul is present from the moment of conception because that is when science tells us that a new human life begins. (Surprisingly, many Catholics erroneously believe that an embryo created by SCNT does not have a soul.)

      But, if he is correct that no one knows for sure, why would he automatically say it is okay to destroy life that we are unsure about? Wouldn’t logic dictate that if “science cannot answer that question” that science should err on the side of caution?

      Indeed.

      Other than that point, something else caught my attention in this article. See the following excerpts:

      Missouri’s cloning war came to the Capitol on Thursday when two Washington University scientists wrangled over research on early stem cells and the laboratory techniques used to grow them.

      …

      The controversy involves a process known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, sometimes called therapeutic cloning. Researchers take a human egg cell, remove its nucleus and replace it with the nucleus of an ordinary cell, such as a skin cell. The egg reprograms the nucleus to act like an egg that was newly fertilized by a sperm.

      In a few days, it will grow into a ball of cells known as a blastocyst. Inside that ball are early stem cells, which have the potential to grow into all the different tissues of the body.

      …

      The basic issue, he said, is the vast potential that research on early stem cells offers.

      The author’s bias on this issue is shining as brightly as Moses’ face when he descended Mt. Sinai, veiled in the substitution of “early stem cells” for “embryonic stem cells” and referring to the embryo as a “ball of cells”.

      SCNT is a cloning technique that results in a zygote. Upon first division, that entity is then an embryo, by definition. The blastocyst is part of the embryonic phase of development of that entity. Thus, the stem cells contained within that blastocyst are embryonic stem cells.

      But the bias doesn’t stop with the misrepresentation of the nature of stem cells as embryonic. Note that the author also makes this statement:

      The controversy involves a process known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, sometimes called therapeutic cloning.

      Saying that SCNT is “sometimes” called therapeutic cloning is like saying the President of the United States (POTUS) is “sometimes” called the Commander-In-Chief (CIC). POTUS is always the CIC, even if he does not always act in that capacity. SCNT is always cloning; the differentiation between “therapeutic” and “reproductive” exists only in the intended use of the product of the procedure.

      To that end, I find the following arguments by Steven Teitelbaum to be specious.

      First:

      Teitelbaum said the initiative uses common-sense meanings. When typical voters think of human cloning, they expect to see a baby, he said. The initiative would ban cloning a baby by imposing criminal penalties against anyone who attempted to implant cloned cells into a woman’s uterus.

      Proponents claim the initiative uses “common-sense meanings”, yet the initiative fact sheet adamantly claims that it bans human cloning:

      Voting YES on the Initiative protects stem cell research and cures – and strictly prohibits human cloning.

      …

      It also sets responsible boundaries and guidelines to ensure that stem cell research is conducted ethically and safely. And, it resolves concerns that stem cell research could lead to human cloning by strictly banning any attempt to clone a human being.

      These semantics are not “common-sense”; they are an intentional misrepresentation of the nature and intent of both the procedure, and the initiativfe itself. At the point of implantation into the uterus, the cloning procedure has long-since been completed, and the clone has long-since been created. At this point, implantation in the uterus versus harvesting for stem cells is a matter of intended use of the clone, not one of defining the nature or identity of the entity resulting from the cloning procedure.

      Second:

      In addition, the blastocyst created by nuclear transfer is fundamentally different from one created by the union of sperm and egg, Teitelbaum said. The sexually produced blastocyst has some 25 genes functioning that permit it to implant in the uterus and begin to develop. In the cloned version, those genes are not functioning, he said.

      Oh really? Fundamentally different, eh? Somebody better tell Dolly; she still thinks she’s a sheep. A whole lot of researchers are going to be shocked by this revelation that she is “fundamentally different” from a sheep, because she was the result of SCNT.

    • OYB February 19

      Today´s reading:
      OT: Leviticus 7:28-38, Leviticus 8, Leviticus 9:1-6
      NT: Mark 3:31-35, Mark 4:1-25
      Ps: Psalm 37:12-29
      Pr: Proverbs 10:5

      Today´s notable verse:

      33 Do not leave the entrance to the Tent of Meeting for seven days, until the days of your ordination are completed, for your ordination will last seven days. 34 What has been done today was commanded by the LORD to make atonement for you. 35 You must stay at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting day and night for seven days and do what the LORD requires, so you will not die; for that is what I have been commanded.

      Leviticus 8:33-35 (NIV)

      Out of curiosity, what of the observance of the Sabbath during this seven-day ordination period?

      The One Year Bible Blog notes:

      Comments from You & Question of the Day – I realize that my reflections above in the OT section on clergy at churches receiving compensation might be controversial in some ways. What are your thoughts on your clergy receiving compensation? What are your thoughts on others in other types of ministry receiving compensation? Where do we draw the line of when ministry should be done with compensation or without compensation?

      Absolutely, ministers of the Word should be compensated and supported by those to whom they minister. See the words of Paul in I Corinthians chapter 9:

      7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? 8 Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.”[b] Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10 Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. 11 If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more? But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Don’t you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

      I Corinthians 9:7-14

      That pretty much sums it up, doesn’t it?

      Further, I think ministers should be well-compensated. Financial issues should not be an inherent burden for our ministers (though, of course, they have the same responsibility of financial stewardship that the rest of us have). At the same time, I think ministers outwardly should display the utmost in humility with respect to materialism. Within those bounds, I think the Spirit will direct in such matters.

    • A Reader’s Response on ANT

      Parableman stops by this post about the stem-cell issue, that I submitted to Christian Carnival CIX. He has some thoughts on ANT:

      I don’t think it’s as clear on ANT. The way it’s usually been described from what I’ve read is that they alter the genetic information before they import the nucleus. The genetic engineering thus takes place before there’s any orgnanism, and I think what they’re doing is not like producing a human being that is alive and unable to grow but more like producing a corpse with still-living material. But it’s not producing a corpse by killing an organism. It’s more like producing a corpse by putting together materials that are incapable of being an organism. That doesn’t sound anywhere near as problematic as the way you describe it. I think there are ethical worries, but I think it’s misleading to describe it as a living embryo and then preventing it from growing. Does it count as an organism at all? I don’t think that’s as easy a question as you’re making it sound. Current understandings of what it takes to answer that seem to me to be indeterminate on this sort of question.

      I appreciate all input, and I’d like to discuss. On this statement:

      The way it’s usually been described from what I’ve read is that they alter the genetic information before they import the nucleus. The genetic engineering thus takes place before there’s any orgnanism…

      Let’s take a look at what actually happens in the process. The method used here is still Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT):

      The nucleus of a cell contains DNA, which acts roughly as its blueprint (although unlike an actual blueprint, these instructions are greatly affected by environment as well as other factors not yet fully understood and can change over time). In somatic cell nuclear transfer the nucleus of an unfertilized egg is removed or destroyed. A somatic cell (a cell other than a sperm or egg cell) is then inserted into the enucleated egg and the two cells fuse together.

      Altered Nuclear Transfer (ANT) modifies not the process, but one of the components: namely, the somatic cell implanted in the nucleus-free egg. What, then, is a somatic cell?

      A somatic cell is generally taken to mean any cell forming the body of an organism: the word “somatic” is derived from the Greek word s?ma, meaning “body”. Somatic cells, by definition, are not germline cells and cannot divide or differentiate to produce a new generation of offspring under any circumstances. In mammals, germline cells are the sperm and ova (also known as “gametes”) which fuse during fertilisation to produce a cell called a zygote, from which the entire mammalian embryo develops. Every other cell type in the mammalian body – apart from the sperm and ova, the cells from which they are made (gametocytes) and undifferentiated stem cells – is a somatic cell; internal organs, skin, bones, blood and connective tissue are all made up of somatic cells.

      …

      Somatic cells can also be defined by the amount of genetic material they contain, which in mammals is always twice as much as contained in a germline cell. The genetic information in human somatic cells is packaged into 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human germline cells contain exactly half this amount, i.e. 23 single chromosomes. This means that when an ova and sperm fuse, they produce a zygote with 23 pairs of chromosomes.

      The problem, then, that I have with your statement that “genetic engineering thus takes place before there’s any organism” is that the SCNT process (altered or otherwise) requires a genetically fully human organism to be present at every step. The process starts with a genetically fully human somatic cell, implants it into an enucleated human gamete, creating a genetically fully human embryo. Both the original somatic cell and the resulting embryo contain 23 pairs of chromosomes.

      ANT does not modify this genetic makeup of either the somatic cell nor of the resulting embryo. This point is critical, and ANT proponents (including Dr. Hurlbut) try to disguise this fact:

      Altered Nuclear Transfer uses the technology of NT but with a preemptive alteration that assures that no embryo is created.

      The somatic cell nucleus or the enucleated egg contents (cytoplasm) or both are first altered before the somatic cell nucleus is transferred into the egg. The alterations cause the somatic cell DNA to function in such a way that no embryo is generated, but pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) are produced.

      This point is critical, and ANT proponents’ position here is untenable. Stem cells are not “formed”, they are – by definition – derived from an embryo. Definition of embryonic stem cells:

      Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) are stem cells derived from the undifferentiated inner mass cells of a human embryo (sometimes called a blastocyst, which is an early stage embryo – approximately 1 week old in humans – consisting of 50-150 cells).

      To be clear, here is the definition of a blastocyst:

      A mammal develops from a single cell called a zygote, which results from an oocyte (egg) being fertilized by a single sperm. The zygote is surrounded by a strong membrane of glycoproteins called the zona pellucida which the successful sperm has managed to penetrate.

      The zygote undergoes cleavage, increasing the number of cells within the zona pellucida. When there are about 4 to 16 cells, the embryo is in the morula stage. When the number of cells reaches 40 to 150, a central, fluid-filled cavity (blastocoel) forms. The zona pellucida begins to degenerate. This stage in the developing embryo is the blastocyst, and lasts approximately until the implantation in the uterus. The outer cells develop into the placenta.

      The definition of a zygote:

      A zygote …is a cell that is the result of fertilization. That is, two haploid cells—usually (but not always) an ovum from a female and a sperm cell from a male—merge into a single diploid cell called the zygote (or zygocyte).

      Animal zygotes undergo mitotic cell divisions to become an embryo.

      And finally, the definition of embryo:

      An embryo …is a diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development.

      …

      In organisms that reproduce sexually, once a sperm fertilizes an egg cell, the result is a cell called the zygote that has all the DNA of two parents. In plants, animals, and some protists, the zygote will begin to divide by mitosis to produce a multicellular organism. The term embryo refers to the early stages of this development, after the zygote has divided at least once, but before the process has completed to produce a new individual.

      Apologies for the copious quoting, but it is important that the meanings of each of these terms are understood.

      Now, back to Hulburt’s defense:

      Why the cell produced by ANT is not an embryo and cannot produce an embryo:

      Because the alterations are made before the somatic cell nucleus is transferred into the egg, the result of the ANT procedure is a cell whose DNA and pattern of gene expression are not only altered, but altered from the very start. Therefore from the very start it does not have the capacity for the integrated organization and coordinated development that characterize a human embryo. This is clearest in the case of ANT-OAR where the cell directly behaves like a pluripotent cell.

      Elsewhere, in his bioethics presentation to the President, he gives this explanation for why the result of ANT is not a “living organism”:

      The moral argument for Altered Nuclear Transfer is grounded in the emerging science of systems biology. According to this radical revision of our prevailing reductionistic views, an organism is a living whole, a dynamic network of interdependent and integrated parts.

      There are essential subsystems of growth (cells, tissues and organs), but a living being is more than the sum of its parts, and the parts are dependent on the integrated unity of the whole. Fully constituted, the organism is a self-sustaining and harmonious whole, a unified being with an inherent principle of organization that orders and guides its continuity of growth. In the human embryo, this principle of organismal unity is an engaged and effective potential-in-process, an activated dynamic of development in the direction of the mature human form. Incompletely constituted or severed from the whole, subsystems with partial trajectories of development may temporarily proceed forward with a certain biological momentum. Ultimately, however, they fail to rise to the level of the coordinated coherence of a living organism and become merely disorganized cellular growth.

      This is dangerous ground, for several reasons. Unaltered, the somatic cell and egg would fuse, begin mitosis, and the resulting embryo would proceed on to further development. Altered, the somatic cell and egg would fuse, begin mitosis (note, again, at this point, the organism is an embryo) – identical to the unaltered organism, except that it has been genetically robbed of its inherent ability to develop. Let me reiterate: the moment a zygote containing 23 paired human chromosomes divides, an embryo exists; a non-viable embryo, to be sure – but an embryo, nonetheless. ANT proponents can argue the moral impact of the creation of a non-viable embryo, but to claim that ANT does not produce an embryo is a fallacy. Two arguments:

      • First, NT produces a zygote, which upon first division becomes – by definition – an embryo.
      • Second, ANT does not produce stem cells directly, but an organism containing stem cells. As was demonstrated above, the entity containing stem cells is an embryo at the blastocyst stage.

      So, coming back to Parableman’s comment:

      I think what they’re doing is not like producing a human being that is alive and unable to grow but more like producing a corpse with still-living material. But it’s not producing a corpse by killing an organism. It’s more like producing a corpse by putting together materials that are incapable of being an organism.

      Hopefully you can see now that the rationalization for the entity created from ANT being non-living (or non-human, or whatever term they choose to use) is to re-define the meaning of “living”:”Fully constituted, the organism is a self-sustaining and harmonious whole, a unified being with an inherent principle of organization that orders and guides its continuity of growth. In the human embryo, this principle of organismal unity is an engaged and effective potential-in-process, an activated dynamic of development in the direction of the mature human form.” Again, unaltered, the embryo would progress along the natural developmental path; altered, the embryo is denied that natural development.

      This rationalization is crudely analagous to genetically altering the hypothalamus or androgen/LH receptor genes of a child, inhibiting that child from progressing through puberty into adulthood, and then claiming that, because the child is unable to progress along his natural developmental path, that he is not “living”.

      Remember, the somatic cell is inherently capable of development into a fully developed entity. This concept is the entire basis of SCNT. Thus, the somatic cell is in no way materials that are incapable of being an organism, nor is it like “corpse with still-living material.

      The moral and ethical concerns of genetically altering a potential human life are myriad, and better left for another day. My point here is only to clarify the process of ANT and the nature of the entities involved beforehand and produced as a result.

      Finally, Parableman’s comment:

      …I think it’s misleading to describe it as a living embryo and then preventing it from growing.

      The embryo resulting from SCNT inherently progresses along its natural development path. The embryo resulting from ANT begins progressing along that same natural development path, but has been genetically inhibited from completing that path. It reaches at least the blastocyst stage – as evidenced by its development of embryonic stem cells.

      ANT does not directly produce stem cells; it produces an embryo that develops stem cells as part of its natural developmenet process. Again, argue the moral/ethical issues surrounding the creation of an embryo genetically altered to inhibit its development; but the claim that ANT does not produce a human embryo is unequivocally untrue.

    • Clone The Truth: Stem-Cell Research Splits Republicans

      Today’s obfuscation comes from roto-Reuters, in Stem Cell Research Splits Republicans.

      Getting right into it:

      The Republican rift pits religious conservatives and abortion foes who oppose the research on moral grounds against supporters who tout its potential benefits in fighting diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

      Embryonic Stem Cell (ESC) research has proven no potential for benefits in fighting or curing any diseases. Adult Stem Cells (ASRs), however, have already proven to be efficacious in treating Parkinson’s Disease, and are beginning to demonstrate effectiveness in fighting Alzheimer’s Disease. Proponents of ESC research never seem to note these accomplishments of ASRs, nor do the MSM outlets reporting on stem-cell related news and issues.

      With polls showing large majorities of Americans backing stem-cell research, some Republican candidates find themselves stuck in the middle. Democrats, who largely support the research, are eager to take advantage of their quandary.

      Large majorities of Americans back stem-cell research? No differentiation between ASC and ESC research? This 2001 ABC News poll says most Americans support stem cell research, yet buried in the article is this note:

      In a poll it released last month, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops posed the issue by saying “live embryos would be destroyed” for undefined “experiments”; it found 70 percent opposed. By contrast, a pro-research poll didn’t mention embryos, referring to “excess fertilized eggs” and listing seven “deadly diseases” the research could help treat. It found 77 percent in favor.

      Words matter.

      In Missouri, supporters are gathering signatures to put a referendum on the state ballot in November that would protect certain types of stem-cell research.

      Not “certain types” – all types. The initiative redefines “cloning” as “not cloning”:

      Voting YES on the Initiative protects stem cell research and cures – and strictly prohibits human cloning.

      Clearly, a state ban on any lifesaving stem cell research and cures that are allowed in our country would be unfair to Missouri patients and medical institutions. The Stem Cell Initiative will prevent such unfair bans by making it clear in our state constitution that any stem cell research and cures allowed under federal law will continue to be allowed in Missouri.

      It also sets responsible boundaries and guidelines to ensure that stem cell research is conducted ethically and safely. And, it resolves concerns that stem cell research could lead to human cloning by strictly banning any attempt to clone a human being.

      And intentionally to confuse the issue with voters, and practically requires the state to fund research with public funds.

      But he recently dropped support for a controversial ban on human cloning and offered a compromise on stem-cell research, angering conservatives who were among his base supporters.

      The proposed cloning ban is “controversial” in the same way that Cheney’s hunting accident was “news” – only because the MSM tried to make it so. Yet another 2001 ABC News poll found that 9 out of 10 Americans oppose human reproductive cloning, and Americans oppose human therapeutic cloning 2 to 1.

      “Talent is in a political no man’s land where he is in the line of fire from people on both sides of the issue,” said Sam Lee, director of Campaign Life Missouri, an anti-abortion lobbying group. Lee said opponents of stem-cell research were angry enough to skip voting for Talent in November.

      Right, Republicans are going to allow – actively or passively – the staunchly pro-ESC research Claire McCaskill to unseat Talent. Roto-Reuters is smoking the funny mushrooms again.

      Stem-cell research is opposed by conservative groups who compare it to abortion because it destroys embryos. But supporters, including some Republicans who oppose abortion rights, say the research offers crucial hope for medical breakthroughs.

      Again, ESC research has offered no hope whatsoever – much less, “crucial hope” – for any medical breakthrough, while ASC research has already yielded at least 65 treatments, and the numbers keep growing. (Caveat emptor: the “Stem Cell Research Foundation” is complicit in the redefinition of terminology, including this statement: “Therapeutic cloning is not the same as reproductive cloning, which is intended to genetically duplicate a person” knowing full-well that SCNT genetically duplicates the donor of the somatic cell. However, even their “what’s new” section cannot hide the fact that ASCs produce benefit, cure, and therapy after benefit, cure, and therapy while ESCs are long on hype and woefully short on results.)

      Via John Combest.

    • MetroVoice 2006 Sanctity of Life Special Edition

      The February 2006 St. Louis MetroVoice is a Special Edition devoted to Sanctity of Life.

      The edition includes:

      MetroVoice’s Editorial Policy:

      The MetroVoice is non-denominationally and non-politically aligned to encourage unity and activism in support of, or opposition to, those issues which affect the Christian community in particular and local community as a whole. It supports the biblical doctrines expressed in the ecumenical creeds of the Apostle’s Creed, Nicene Creed, Creed of Chalcedon and Athanasian Creed and views both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible as the infallible and authoritative Word of God.