REF: virgin birth, what about Cloning ?
-
Peace all,
I missed the entire Jesus's virgin birth debate until after the topic was locked. One very important point that was missed by everyone was CLONING. Cloning completely demolishes Arnold's theory. 5345-46 do not talk only about humans but also applies to animals. If a sheep can be born from a single parent by cloning then why can't Jesus ? This shows that the virgin birth of Jesus is a naturally possible phenomenon and can be explained scientifically and is nothing more supernatural than cloning. If scientists can perform cloning of sheep in a lab governed by the natural cosmic laws, then why can't God cause the virgin birth of Jesus which is a similar phenomenon ? In both cases, a cell starts dividing resulting in a fully grown organism without fertilization from a sperm !
5345-46 and 4913 are GENERAL statements and not all inclusive, otherwise the word "kullu"/every/all would have been used in those verses. Those GENERAL statements can have exceptions such as cloning and the virgin birth of Jesus. Whenever Allah wants to include ALL/EVERY He clearly says "kullu" which DOES NOT HAVE ANY EXCEPTIONS. Remember, Allah does not run out of words. For example
3185 Every soul will taste death, and you will be recompensed your dues on the Day of Resurrection.
This means there is NO exception to any soul's death. If Allah had meant that EVERY human was born of male and female then He would have used "kullu" somewhere in 4913.
Also some members are trying to imply that Allah's sunnah/way includes all of the cosmic laws, thereby inferring that all cosmic laws will never change. That definition of Allah's sunnah is completely incorrect according to how al-qur'aan defines Allah's sunnah as brother Fahad showed us. Allah's sunnah is applicable to only certain situations such as destruction of the evil doers, backfiring of the evil schemes on the evil schemers etc. and does not change in those situations and DOES NOT APPLY TO ALL COSMIC LAWS. I will quote directly from brother Fahad in the virginbirth thread
"Quote from Tay on December 10, 2006, 030115 PM
Peace Fahad,Arnold answered you on page 2. I provided the ayat which spell it out - God's way/laws. Now that I've taken your bait, you can go ahead and explain to us that God's way as mentioned in the qur'an is applicable only in the context in which it's expressed in each particular ayah.
You did not provide the ayat which spells it out. You left out those ayaat on purpose. Here, this is what you had provided
Quote from Tay on December 09, 2006, 104115 AM
1777 This is the way of those whom We sent before you of Our messengers. And you will not find any change in Our way.
but you left out 17/76 which spells out sunnat of Allah "And they nearly frightened you to drive you out of the land. But in that case, they would have shortly been destroyed after you were gone." (Free-Minds translation)
Then you provided verse ...
Quote
3362 This is God's way with those who have passed away before, and you will not find any change in God's way.but you left out 33/60-61 which spells out the sunnat of Allah "If the hypocrites, and those with disease in their hearts and those who spread lies in the city do not refrain, then We will let you overpower them, then they will not be able to remain as your neighbours except for a short while."
Then you provided...
Quote
3543 ...You will not find any change in God's way, and you will not find any bypass to His way.but left out the first part of the verse which spells out the sunnat of Allah
35/43 "Arrogance on earth, and evil scheming. And the evil schemes only backfire on those who scheme them. Were they expecting anything different from the ways used on the people of the past?"....
That is what Allah calls His sunnat, the parts which you left out.
Who do you think you are deceiving?!
Quote
Fact is, Fahad, we stand on different sides of this topic and to further pursue it would be fruitless. I cannot subscribe to the idea that God's laws constantly change throughout time just to build a case for some previous supernatural occurrences.You guys are not paying attention to what Allah calls His sunnat, but you are making up your own definitions of Allah's sunnat in order to rationalize Al-Quran."
Emphasis mine in brother Fahad's quote.
To brother Phoenix This would explain the virgin birth of Jesus, while making it a real event rather than a parable, without creating contradiction in al-qur'aan.
Peace
-
Peace Tanveer, good post. Good example. I was having problem understand certain idea presented by G.A. Parwez in Kitab-ul-Taqdeer, namely, the virgin birth/the parting of the sea by Moses and the permanent law. The explanation provided by brother Fahad was very helpful in resolving some of my problems. His explanation is Quranic and logical.
-
Peace Tanveer,
The cloning phenomena is a good point and should be addressed.
Regarding Allah's sunnah, I don't believe your and brother Fahad's understanding is prevalent. The definition of "Allah's sunnah" is God's law/way. The qur'an is full of God's laws. Imagine, if we take your position, then the only laws of God are the ones in which "Allah's sunnah" is mentioned within the context of the ayah. That would mean that everything mentioned in the qur'an that is not followed by "this is God's way, and God's way does not change" would be rendered flexible.Is this your position?
Here's an example of the way I see it
1-Do not pee on the grass.
This is a rule of the park and the park rules don't change.
2-Do not dump garbage in the park.
3-Do not drink alcohol in the park.
4-The park closes a half-hour after sunset.Do I need to follow every rule with "This is a rule of the park and the park rules don't change."?
I think we're bright enough to understand all 4 rules are the rules of the park. And we're bright enough to understand that mentioning "the rules don't change" minimally is all that's necessary. I'm not creating my own definitions. The rules are already there.Lastly, looking at the bigger picture, I do not subscribe to a dabbling Creator because of the much greater philosophical implications this understanding demands. God, intervening two thousand years ago to make Isa a sign, that coincidentally is exactly the same as man-made myths created centuries earlier, yet no signs for the modern chaos that has existed ever since. God intervening to destroy pharoah and his oppression, yet sitting by idly while millions die from other pharoahs and their oppression.
What we create when we swallow these understandings is a wishy-washy God that does things "because God said so". Who are we to question his judgement? Blasphemy, right?
Peace,
Tay -
guest wrote
His explanation is Quranic and logical.i agree...to take just 1777 and study the context..(and other verses can be seen to have the similar context)
17 76 And if they were about to/almost to scare to drive you out from the land to bring/drive you out from it, and then they do not remain/wait behind you except little.
17 77 A law/manner (of) whom We had sent before you from Our messengers, and you do not find for Our law/manner a change/removal
its amply clear from those verses that this was the manner applied for those sent before muhammad..and that never have those who disbelieved been given respite, save for a while! -)
if u look up the other verses where the quran talks about the immutable way of god...u will find a similar context! -)
-
Peace Tay, all,
The cloning phenomena is a good point and should be addressed.
Agreed, and this point annihilates Arnold's theory.
Regarding Allah's sunnah, I don't believe your and brother Fahad's understanding is prevalent. The definition of "Allah's sunnah" is God's law/way. The qur'an is full of God's laws. Imagine, if we take your position, then the only laws of God are the ones in which "Allah's sunnah" is mentioned within the context of the ayah. That would mean that everything mentioned in the qur'an that is not followed by "this is God's way, and God's way does not change" would be rendered flexible.
Is this your position?
Here's an example of the way I see it
1-Do not pee on the grass.
This is a rule of the park and the park rules don't change.
2-Do not dump garbage in the park.
3-Do not drink alcohol in the park.
4-The park closes a half-hour after sunset.Do I need to follow every rule with "This is a rule of the park and the park rules don't change."?
I think we're bright enough to understand all 4 rules are the rules of the park. And we're bright enough to understand that mentioning "the rules don't change" minimally is all that's necessary. I'm not creating my own definitions. The rules are already there.We have to go strictly by what Allah tells us what His sunnah is in al-qur'aan without imposing our conjectures of what Allah's sunnah is. According to al-qur'aan, Allah's never changing sunnah is limited only to evil being given some respite and eventually destroyed, and this sunnah will never change.
Your example would be relevant only if the statement "These are the rules of the park and the park rules don't change" addressed all the stated rules. In your example, that statement addresses only rule #1; so, logically, the way you wrote it, only rule #1 can never change, and rules #2, #3, #4 can be changed by whoever has the authority to change them.
Lastly, looking at the bigger picture, I do not subscribe to a dabbling Creator because of the much greater philosophical implications this understanding demands. God, intervening two thousand years ago to make Isa a sign, that coincidentally is exactly the same as man-made myths created centuries earlier, yet no signs for the modern chaos that has existed ever since. God intervening to destroy pharoah and his oppression, yet sitting by idly while millions die from other pharoahs and their oppression.
Evil is always given some respite and then destroyed and that is the never changing sunnah of Allah. In the cosmic scale, 2000 years is but a nano second, even less than that. Be patient, Allah's wrath will come soon. There is a super volcano brewing under Yellowstone National Park which can go off any second now. Even according to scientific astronomical calculations, there is a chance of an asteroid "Apophis" colliding with Earth in 2036 if Apophis passes through the precise point in space at which Earth's gravitational pull would affect the asteroid's orbit in just the right way. See the following links
http//science.hq.nasa.gov/solar_system/science/impacts.html
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis
This is about the known Near Earth Objects (NEO). It is always possible that an unknown comet or asteroid can collide with Earth at any time. There are many other global catastrophes waiting to happen; see the following link
http//www.armageddononline.org/
The following verse could very well be about the aftermaths of the Yellowstone National Park's super volcano explosion !!
4410 Therefore, watch for the day when the sky will bring a visible smoke.
I can understand your frustration. Be patient brother Tay, Allah's sunnat of evil being given some respite and then annihilated never changes !
3200 O you who believe, be patient and call for patience, and bond together and revere God that you may succeed.
1031 By time.
1032 The human is indeed in loss.
1033 Except those who believe, and do good works, and support one another with the truth, and support one another with perseverance/patience.Peace
-
I missed the entire Jesus's virgin birth debate until after the topic was locked. One very important point that was missed by everyone was CLONING. Cloning completely demolishes Arnold's theory. 5345-46 do not talk only about humans but also applies to animals. If a sheep can be born from a single parent by cloning then why can't Jesus ? This shows that the virgin birth of Jesus is a naturally possible phenomenon and can be explained scientifically and is nothing more supernatural than cloning. If scientists can perform cloning of sheep in a lab governed by the natural cosmic laws, then why can't God cause the virgin birth of Jesus which is a similar phenomenon ?
no "natural" occurance of cloning is reported to date except for the story of jesus, thus we cannot confim the sign by looking around us. And your whole thesis falls apart right there. You are IMO playing favorites to defend an old astor theologic legend that constantly gets superimposed over this particular story. Just because we dont understand it currently, doesnt mean the catholics had it right!
-
Peace Tanveer,
this point annihilates Arnold's theory.
I'd give the brother a chance to respond before declaring victory.
We have to go strictly by what Allah tells us what His sunnah is in al-qur'aan without imposing our conjectures of what Allah's sunnah is.
It is not conjecture when the qur'an is chock full of commands from Allah.
If everything except, "Evil is always given some respite and then destroyed" is NOT Allah's sunnah, then what is it? Allah's theories? Allah's guesses? Allah's maybe's?Sticking to the letter of interpretation is often taken too far, to the point of crippling understanding. I believe this is the case with your understanding of "Allah's sunnah".
Further, this is ONE point among many that strongly supports the natural birth of Isa and the inherited dogma we now find ourselves in which neither you nor Fahad have addressed.
Kindly explain how the legend of a virgin mother giving birth to a "chosen one" predates Isa.
Kindly explain how a divinely born baby can be held equal to a naturally born baby.In the cosmic scale, 2000 years is but a nano second, even less than that.
Yes, but not on the scale of civilized humanity. In fact, you have a flurry of God miracles over the course of a few hundred years, and then two thousand years of no activity. Meanwhile, billions have suffered with no repurcussions for those in charge.
How one can ignore this glaring inactivity is beyond me. It's not frustration, it's looking at the big picture and trying to understand how an all-merciful, all-just God can allow this. Well, He can't, unless He chose to stay out of it from the beginning.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace Magi,
no "natural" occurance of cloning is reported to date except for the story of jesus, thus we cannot confim the sign by looking around us. And your whole thesis falls apart right there.
Kindly do your research before making unsound/incorrect/false statements. Parthenogenesis is a "natural" form of birth by development of an egg without fertilization by sperm which is similar to cloning. Parthenogenesis occurs naturally in some species, including lower plants, invertebrates (e.g. water fleas, aphids, some bees and parasitic wasps), and vertebrates (e.g. some reptiles, fish, and, very rarely, birds). The basic premise is to prove the possibility of growth and development of an organism from a single seed/egg without fertilization from a sperm, and both cloning and parthenogenesis are examples/proofs, be it "natural" or otherwise. Artificial cloning is also "natural" in the sense that it is still subject to "natural" laws.
Please allow me to revise my earlier statement. Parthenogenesis AND cloning, both annihilate/destroy/demolish Arnold's theory !
Peace
-
tay wrote
How one can ignore this glaring inactivity is beyond me.11132 They said O Nuh! indeed you have disputed with us and lengthened dispute with us, therefore bring to us what you threaten us with, if you are of the truthful ones.
had the history of humankind been saturated with instances of preternatural... such a proposition may not have been put forth by the disbelievers of yore!
...however...they perhaps did take the respite as a glaring omen of inactivity...till the sunnah of god overtook them! -)
it's an age-old malady! -)
-
Peace Tay,
It is not conjecture when the qur'an is chock full of commands from Allah.
If everything except, "Evil is always given some respite and then destroyed" is NOT Allah's sunnah, then what is it? Allah's theories? Allah's guesses? Allah's maybe's?Sticking to the letter of interpretation is often taken too far, to the point of crippling understanding. I believe this is the case with your understanding of "Allah's sunnah".
Further, this is ONE point among many that strongly supports the natural birth of Isa and the inherited dogma we now find ourselves in which neither you nor Fahad have addressed.
Kindly explain how the legend of a virgin mother giving birth to a "chosen one" predates Isa.
Kindly explain how a divinely born baby can be held equal to a naturally born baby.Allah's sunnah is what Allah says it is, not what we say or want it to be.
Legends are what they are i.e. legends and are irrelevant to seeking the truth.
All of us "naturally born" organisms, both resulting from sexual reproduction or parthenogenesis, are also "divinely born". If not, I challenge you to create an egg/sperm from scratch and cause them to produce a fully grown organism. The "natural" births are a miracle in themselves witnessed by us all the time, and thus divine.
Yes, but not on the scale of civilized humanity. In fact, you have a flurry of God miracles over the course of a few hundred years, and then two thousand years of no activity. Meanwhile, billions have suffered with no repurcussions for those in charge.
How one can ignore this glaring inactivity is beyond me. It's not frustration, it's looking at the big picture and trying to understand how an all-merciful, all-just God can allow this. Well, He can't, unless He chose to stay out of it from the beginning.
Few hundred years or 2 thousand years, in the cosmic time scale are very close to each other and more than an individual's lifetime any way. All problems are not necessarily solved in this lifetime of one's existence. That is what the hereafter is for. Even when there was a flurry of miracles over few hundred years, there were still countless of lives that "suffered" in between those miracles. According to your hypothesis, there should then be FULL recompense of every suffering within every individual's lifetime; unfortunately Allah's mercy and grand design doesn't work like that. EVENTUALLY, however, there will be full recompense, but it might take some time.
Peace
-
Peace Tanveer,
The "natural" births are a miracle in themselves witnessed by us all the time, and thus divine.
I agree. Sorry for the negligent wording. Is one born without a father, as far as we know, for the only time in history, equal to every other person who was born with a father?
Legends are what they are i.e. legends and are irrelevant to seeking the truth.
So, it is coincidence, then, that what you subscribe to was also created by polytheists/pagans long before Isa's time? Is this your position?
Few hundred years or 2 thousand years, in the cosmic time scale are very close to each other and more than an individual's lifetime any way.
Cosmic scale is irrelevant. We're discussing humanity's scale and God's interaction or lack thereof within this scale. So, 2 thousand years is a big chunk of that time.
Even when there was a flurry of miracles over few hundred years, there were still countless of lives that "suffered" in between those miracles. According to your hypothesis, there should then be FULL recompense of every suffering within every individual's lifetime;
It's not my hypothesis. I'm working with YOUR belief in supernatural occurrences. I do not believe God has ever intervened, because, as you stated, if he intervenes at one time and not another, that makes God less than perfect in His dispersement of Mercy and Justice. This is not my opinion, but a definable understanding of the very terms we're using.
unfortunately Allah's mercy and grand design doesn't work like that.
Right, according to you, the mercy is for some and not others.
EVENTUALLY, however, there will be full recompense, but it might take some time.
Full recompense to dead people???
I'm sorry bro, but this makes no sense. If you're talking about the afterlife then you've switched subjects.Peace,
Tay -
tay wrote
Why were Nuh's people drowned?according to a verse from quran
5146 And the people of Noah before that; they were wicked people.
...likely (that) they took the period of "inactivity" as a sign that noah was bluffing them...and "thrived" in their insolence...what say? -)
talking of miracles...ur comment about the republicans being possibly alluded to in the quran...seems u do not rule out the possibilty of prophecies in quran....is it so? -)
peace tay! -)
-
peace
Parthenogenesis (did I spell it right?) is not cloning. It is actual reproduction, except without a father.
But I still do not agree with Tanveer that this "annihilates" Arnold's theory, simply because- your whole argument assumes that the virgin birth is what the quran is implying, and you have yet to prove that conclusively, in fact Arnold and Tay have presented much stronger arguments than you and fahad have.
2.I'm sure that parthenogenesis is something that Arnold would use if it supported his position, but I have to say that even though something like this is possible in humans, it's not likely, and since it's not, God would not use it as an example. Allow me to explain, God would use examples that are easy to understand and are related to our lives in some way. Remember that the quran was written 1400 years ago. People back then didn't understand these "scientific" occurances in the quran. Why would a person, let alone God, use these things as examples?
What did those people do, believe blindly? just take the quran's word for it? I don't think so.
I don't mind "scientific miracles" in the quran, as long as understanding a certain message in it does not depend on it.
If what you are saying is true, tanveer, then IMO God has committed a major blunder, and it's no wonder that for the past millenium no one has actually followed the quran. No one understood it!
But I doubt that was the case. I think that the examples used in the quran do not contain complicated science or numeralogy, they are simple and easy to understand (which means anyone can understand them, not only educated people in the 21st century).3.Your argument with Tay about God's laws changing is desperate at best. If I say that my laws do not change. Then some other time I say that my law is to wash my hands before eating, does that mean that law of mine will change? no. What you are saying is not only illogical, but also an insult to everyone's (including yours) intelligence.
And your concept of God I don't understand either. Why would a fair, just God interfere with people's lives 2000 years ago, but not anymore? why doesn't God create miracles (supernatural) for us now?
If my eyesight, hearing, and mind will be held responsible in front of God, then I'd rather not believe in these supernatural miracles.I didn't have a problem with virgin birth because my thinking was that maybe Jesus and co. aren't intended to be people. That they are symbols for something else. But I think it's been proven that Jesus is a man, and a man must have a father and a mother (I found a mistake in the quran!!!!!!!!*), so Jesus had to have two parents just like all of us. The concept of virgin birth started with Egyptian paganism (horus the Sun was the virgin born savior that saved them everyday) and Jesus in the bible = Horus in egypt. Either that's a reason that the quran does imply virgin birth, or it's a reason the quran doesn't support virgin birht at all.
BTW, the mistake is that parthenogenesis (if it works for humans) requires no father. And the quran says that everyone must have a father.
bravo
edit actually, Tanveer should get the credit for finding the mistake.
Or maybe it's not a mistake at all!
EDIT it's probably not a mistake. sorry! -
Peace,
Tanveer, for 1, cloning is only copying an existing DNA form, this DNA is a combination of male and female genes. So cloning has nothing to do with.
As for parthenogenesis, this is only seen with a few animals on earth. To let it work on humans, we have to intervene heavely on the egg. This shows it is not part of our normal DNA-structure to allow it. With the animals and plants where it does occur, it is part of their DNA-structure.
The human DNA is not made for parthenogenesis, we must force it into this. So although possible, this person will not have a normal HUMAN structured DNA, but a forced altered one.
Secondly, the understanding of virgin birth from the Quran is only taken from one verse, the denial of Mary that she was touched by males when the Malikah told her about an upcoming child. This denial of hers has a wide interpretation range, and allows thus many views.
So you cannot say my theory is demolished, not at all. You can only say that YOUR interpretation of the story is different then mine.
The overall message of the Quran appeals to logic and to scientifical approach with rational thinking. Parthenogenesis is not allowed in human DNA, it most be forced on it through DNA modification. To hold on to the virgin birth theory based on 2-3 verses that have a wide interpretation range is not scientific in my eyes.
Plus, as i said before, if the virgin birth mythology wasn't so common in Muslim thinking, i doubt people would have read virgin birth into the story.
Believe what you want, but you haven't proven or demolished anything. Only that the virgin birth interpretation needs a lot of unnatural theories and unneccessary interpretation to believe in it.
In the World of Command (Al-Amr), He makes Laws as He wills. Then, He implements these Laws in the World of Creation (Al-Khalq or the Universe 754). These Laws NEVER change (3543, 4823). If we reflect, the magnificent gains of science and technology would have come to naught if the proverbial apple of Newton fell on the ground yesterday and flew in the air today.
Throughout the Quran, Allah points out to the fixed laws of the Universe. Of course He can deviate from them as He made them. But does Allah need to show His power through deviating from His fixed laws? This is the question you should ask yourself. Allah through the Quran points towards the Universe as His proof of Wisdom and Power. Also He says that no miracle will guide people.
6109 They swear by Allah that if a miracle comes to them, they would surely believe in it (the Book). Say, ?All miracles are with Allah (if you reflect on the Universe). What can make you understand that even if a physical miracle came to them, they will find other excuses and still not believe?
6111 Even if We caused the angels to descend to them, and the dead to speak to them, and We lined up all the miracles before them, they would not believe. People can be guided only according to Allah?s Laws, but most of them choose the way of ignorance.
He always points out to His creation
8817 Will they not, then, look at
- the water-laden clouds, how they are made? (1522).
8818 - And at the sky, how it is raised high? (Without visible pillars 132).
8819 - And at the mountains, how they are entrenched?
8820 - And at the earth, how it is spread out? (That you do not even feel the
sphere, nor feel its speedy rotations 3110, 395, 7928-30).
8821 (This is some evidence, O Messenger!) Remind them, for you are one
to remind.
4013 He it is Who shows you His Signs in the Universe and sends down sustenance for you from the sky. Yet none learns a lesson except those who turn to seek the Truth.
So ask yourselves again. Do you demand miracles from God? Does He need to deviate from His Laws for you to be convinced, or is His creation enough for you? Do you believe His fixed Laws, which are so precisely calculated that deviating from it, even if it is 0,000000000000000001th of the Planck constant, we would not exist; are enough for you to see the Almighty wisdom and Power of Allah?
Peace
- the water-laden clouds, how they are made? (1522).
-
Peace,
As far as my knowledge goes, cloning technics available to us now allow only to clone females, no males have being cloned to date.
The problem I have with virgin birth is "the source" of the chromosone Y for Issa, where did it come from?
PS After some verifications, a male cloning of a mouse have been conducted with success in 1999 in Hawaii.
-
peace someone,
the thing is that cloning (and perhaps even parthenogenesis) is not natural. So unless the scientific technology to change reproduction in humans was available in the 1st century, jesus had to have a father. And according to nature, every person must have a father. -
Peace thegod,
according to a verse from quran
5146 And the people of Noah before that; they were wicked people.
...likely (that) they took the period of "inactivity" as a sign that noah was bluffing them...and "thrived" in their insolence...what say? -)
I'd say that if we assume God intervenes in such a way, then we must also assume that there was a period of Godly "inactivity" until the suffering-threshold was reached. I guess humanity has not reached that same threshold in the past 2000 years??
talking of miracles...ur comment about the republicans being possibly alluded to in the quran...seems u do not rule out the possibilty of prophecies in quran....is it so? -)
Actually, that was a joke...my apologies. But prophecies are something I do not rule out, nor fully endorse.
Peace,
Tay