REF: virgin birth, what about Cloning ?
-
Hello all
Indeed Mary was touched by a man,
an angel who appeared to her in the shape of a man, she was even terrifed of him, hence it should be a virgin birth
Salam
-
Peace Arnold,
I agree with you if you're only considering the dialogue and not the actual speakers. The story itself must include all the parts. And a major part of the story is that a malaika was "speaking" to Marium. So, off the bat, you have to decide if these were words exchanged between Marium and a person who was actually an angel, or take the metaphorical approach.
In either case, you are correct, imo, in pointing out that the actual dialogue can be interpreted to point to either a conventional or a virgin birth, at face value.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace all,
I would like to welcome Ahmed back to the forum welcome
Regarding "supernatural" phenomenon, "supernatural" is a relative term. What may seem supernatural at one point in space and time may seem "natural" at a point in space and time in the future. For example, lot of diseases and infections seemed supernatural in the past but now they seem natural with the advancement of science. The sun and stars were supernatural at some time in the past but perfectly natural now. Even the solar or lunar eclipse seemed "supernatural" at one time. Even the setting of the sun seemed "supernatural" at one time and people thought that the sun set in a boiling lake. Maybe in the future we will discover some as yet undiscovered NATURAL laws that will explain what seems to be supernatural now and will explain the phenomenon of the virgin birth and the various miracles like the bird of clay coming alive by God's permission.
There are hundreds of verses in al-qur'aan that mention direct intervention of God and they all CANNOT be explained metaphorically. There are signs all around us that prove direct intervention of God per quantum physics and entropy. I would take the word of God over anyone elses and wont reject some of the verses just because I cannot understand them or because of lack of a "scientific" explanation. Instead of believing that I am all knowing and understand everything, I would accept God as All Knowing and believe in His word and be patient until God gives me the knowledge of the mutashabihat verses per 37. We cannot validate the word of God based on our imperfect understanding but we validate our understanding based on the perfect message of God.
There is a story in al-qur'aan of similar "supernatural" phenomenon and evidence of God's intervention, but I am sure the ones who dont believe will say that the person mentioned died and got resurrected on his own without God's intervention or that the story is fiction/legend and will refuse to accept the word of God
2259 Or the one who passed through a town, where all its inhabitants had passed away. He said "How can God possibly resurrect this after its death?" So God put him to death for one hundred years, then He resurrected him. He said "How long have you stayed here?" He said "I have stayed here a day or part of a day." He said "No, you have stayed here for one hundred years! Look at your food and drink, they have not changed, but look at your donkey! And We will make you a sign for the people; and look at the bones how We grow them, then We cover them with flesh." So when it was clear to him what happened, he said "I now know that God is capable of all things!"
Al-qur'aan is full of similar stories. God intervenes all the time whether we realize it or not and sometimes when He makes us realize that He is intervening, we think that is an isolated phenomenon only for limited number of people. In actuality as proven by quantum physics and second law of thermodynamics, He intervenes at all times, majority of the time us being unaware of His intervention. No one can QUANTIFY His intervention and say that one kind of His intervention is more or less than another kind. Look in your hearts readers and look at your lives; you will yourself realize that many times God intervened directly in your life to save you from suffering.
The proponents of God having put the universe on auto-pilot will have a point ONLY if there was no being with free will in this universe otherwise they create the following contradiction, as brother guest aptly mentions in his post Humans have free will and they are allowed to interfere in this universe out of their own free will but God isn't ? THAT will be imbalance and will create a contradiction. If the so called natural laws don't allow the direct intervention of God, then they should not allow the direct intervention of any one else out of their free will, including humans.
It boils down to whether one rejects/denies the word of God as prime evidence or not. The fate of the rejecters of Allah's signs/verses has also been clearly told to us by the Creator but those who deny/reject His verses won't accept that either. So to each his own and the matters will be made absolutely clear about EVERYTHING on the Last Day.
548 And We have sent down to you the Scripture with truth, authenticating what is present of the Scripture and superseding it. So judge between them by what God has sent down, and do not follow their desires from what has come to you of the truth. For each of you We have made laws, and a structure; and had God willed, He would have made you all one nation, but He tests you with what He has given you; so strive to do good. To God you will return all of you, and He will inform you regarding that in which you dispute.
397 If you reject, then know that God is in no need of you, and He dislikes rejection for His servants. And if you are appreciative, He is pleased for you. And none shall bear the burdens of another. Then to your Lord is your return, and He will inform you of everything you had done. He is fully aware of what is inside the chests.
Peace
-
Hello All
I was a bit confused regarding what this discussion is all about, after confirming with brother tanveer, I believe his point is irrefutable that God can do anything at any time, this is what Allah told us about Himself in the Quran, hence we should not really specualte on how Mary became pregnant, Allah told us in the Quran that He will make Isa and his mother a sign to all mankind and indeed they are
Thanks
-
Peace all,
Following amazing video is an example of how amazing things are being discovered at a rapid pace. Just when you think you know it all and have discovered all the laws of nature and there is nothing else left to be discovered, something new and incredibly amazing is discovered. It illustrates how "supernatural" can be a relative term. Watch and enjoy
http//video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3102044726280108434
-
Peace Tanveer, all,
We're not discussing what "seems" supernatural. I'm not sure why you keep harping on this with no end in sight. Do you honestly believe that humans will one day create other humans by saying "be"?
Come on, bro.
And the token rejection verses are usually a sign of nothing left in the debate. I'm really looking forward to a time when people can debate without professing monopoly over the right understanding. I've got news for you...no one on this thread is rejecting God's guidance. It's just different interpretations.
May peace be upon you,
Tay -
peace,
Dear AB, this discussion is not on what Allah can do or cannot do.
Allah can do anyhting. This was never disputed or under discussion.
This whole discussion is if Allah breaks His Laws or not and what exactly His Laws are.
It shows we all have a different approach on this. And this must be respected.
-
Peace Tay, here is how I view the system.
- Consider the following two observation of the natural phenomenon
Observation 1 Egg and sperm of 20 year old female and male are brought together (input)
Natural law (system) reaction A beautiful creation of a human
Observation 2 Egg and sperm of another 20 year old female and male are brought together (input)
Natural law (system) reaction No creation of a human no matter how may time tried
These natural phenomenons are unquestionable
Takeaway An apparent contradiction. How do we resolve this? The solution to this problem may resolve the other phenomenon such as virgin birth, fire not burning Ibrahim, opening the sea for Moses etc.
-
To resolve this contradiction we have to bring another input to the system that decides (given the human inputs) weather a human is to be created or not. This is what I call God?s input (intervention). This is logical. The God made the system and he is in total control of the system at all time. There nothing that prevents Him from interacting with His system
-
The God will issue the self destruct command of the Universe via this input mechanism. This idea is valid if you believe that the time of Day of Judgment is known to The God only. If this event is programmed into the system then there is a potential that human can extract it out from the system
-
Now the so called supernatural phenomenon of virgin birth of Isa. The system creates Isa from God?s command ?be? and Mary?s egg. Just like the system created Adam from dust and God?s command ?be?. The same way an angle take the form of a human (does not actually become a human) and the reverse. This is why Ibrahim did not burn in the fire (God?s input). And The God does not do this haphazardly, this is done in accordance with certain attributes of God and His promise
-
The author of The Quran claims that He is the creator of all that we see and that which we do not see. That is the absolute truth. Science can not make such claim and hence it becomes irrelevant in the discussion of creation and our relationship with The God. Science is man made just like hadith is. Scientific evidence may be used to confirm the working of certain laws of the system but it is in no position validate the system. Otherwise we will have to give human the infallible attribute
-
The author of The Quran claims that He is the creator of all that we see and that which we do not see. That is the absolute truth. Science can not make such claim and hence it becomes irrelevant in the discussion of creation and our relationship with The God. Science is man made just like hadith is. Scientific evidence may be used to confirm the working of certain laws of the system but it is in no position validate the system. Otherwise we will have to give human the infallible attribute
Interesting way of looking at it. I look at it like say, game design, and how particular triggers are already programmed into the scripting to occur at specific times in specific occurences. If, then and all that, which execute like clockwork and are hidden from the gamers eyes. Thus all we can see is the end result and occasionally work out certain events. These are always limited to our knowledge of how we think the complete system works/is programmed and thus subject to change. There are no changing of laws in my opinion, just lack of knowledge of the entire picture.
We can argue till we're blue in the face, the basic underlying thing is, we think we're right
-
peace
I recognize the fact that we don't know EVERYTHING, and that things we think are impossible now might not be in the future, but, why would the quran talk about things that we don't understand? isn't it a book we are supposed to learn from and be guided by? how can we do that when we don't understand anything from it? The quran needs to be understood to be followed, and that's why it cannot contain any scientific miracles or codes or prophecies (at least not ones that contribute to the message). People look at the quran as proof that the quran is from god. Well, that's not what the quran is.
And I have a problem with people saying that the "word of the quran" is enough for them. Well, that's blind belief. We can't know if something is true unless we verify it. We never start reading a book assuming that it the absolute truth, we can reach that conclusion after we've read and understood all of it. -
Yes. Exactly. But we have to use reason. We have to trust our intelligence, and not assume that the quran is the word of God. I think that most people on this forum (who do believe that) have reached that conclusion prematurely because they don't yet understand the quran fully. It's possible that most of it is true and some of it is not.
And there are people who don't see any "values" in the quran, because they treat the quran as God's list of miracles and prophecies which prove that the quran is from God. I mean, what is the message of virgin birth? what do we learn from Moses parting the sea? please don't tell me it's the same lesson over and over again - god can do anything. Well, anyone who believes in a god already knows that. -
The message, regarding things we need for spiritual success, are clear. The rest are, as they say, mere details. There are so many things to do in this lifetime, things that involve action, things that involve actually getting out there and doing good works, that arguments like did moses really part the sea? Huh? Fie on those that think so, they'll never get anywhere with that kind of reasoning, kinda loses it's importance. Stick with the basic message if the rest can't be understood or take it in a different way if that makes sense. If it works, well and good. If it doesn't, okay then. We lose track of the big picture and what we really should be focusing on. The doing and the putting into action part. Believe in God and do good works. I don't think He's going to be pushed then if we believed that jesus was from a virgin birth or that moses really parted the sea or that the malaika are thoughts floating around in our head.
And there are people who don't see any "values" in the quran, because they treat the quran as God's list of miracles and prophecies which prove that the quran is from God. I mean, what is the message of virgin birth? what do we learn from Moses parting the sea?
On the other hand, there are those that like talking and arguing about things, might even have everything figured out regarding jesus and iblis and the malaika but when the time for actual action comes, they choke. Whatever the message is, it's going to be something personal that is relevant to that person and this will differ from person to person. As long as they believe in God and do good works, I don't think anyone is in a position to tell someone else what some verse should mean to them.
As long as someone is sharing their opinion regarding their understanding fine. I really don't understand this need to be condescending towards others beliefs because someone thinks they have a better understanding. Share your thoughts, move on. There is no need to keep harping on about something as Tay eloquently put it. I dislike these symbolic vs. literal debates because every single time I've participated in one of them, it always comes down to a battle of who's more right, more rational etc etc. Who cares. It means something to me, God will guide me if I'm sincere, thats all I care about, the rest can go jump in a lake in sub-zero conditions ;D
-
peace SC, well said (mostly). But surely you aren't implying that we should stop debating? that wouldn't be any fun at all, would it? I think it's good that we criticize each other's views, and it leads to more clarity in our understanding.
This forum's here for discussing the quran, mainly. And if we just take the "basic message" and ignore the rest, then we havn't gotten much out of this book, have we? And it's not as simple as "everyone's understanding is different." There are people who are more enlightened (or endarkened as black nationalists would say) than others. And if it's about being sincere, then there are definately people who aren't sincere with themselves and God.
so, everyone, resume telling everyone else what verses should mean to them. -
But surely you aren't implying that we should stop debating? that wouldn't be any fun at all, would it? I think it's good that we criticize each other's views, and it leads to more clarity in our understanding.
There is a thin line where the debate ends and where a useless argument begins. One can usually tell such from the circles in the sand when people keep at it.
This forum's here for discussing the quran, mainly. And if we just take the "basic message" and ignore the rest, then we havn't gotten much out of this book, have we? And it's not as simple as "everyone's understanding is different." There are people who are more enlightened (or endarkened as black nationalists would say) than others. And if it's about being sincere, then there are definately people who aren't sincere with themselves and God.
Who's asking you to ignore the rest? The problem with these 'debates' are, that the topic very often is not really discussed as much as their own way of looking at things. It often comes down to that, thus one starts with the verses regarding maryam and end up somewhere completely different because they have issues that supercede the topic itself. It's like one of those posting guidelines, "If debaters have approaches which are diametrically opposed to each other, it would most times result in a clash with no outcome except frustration." The real issue here is once again symbolic vs. literal, not cloning apparently as it says in the heading. Debate is fine but one needs to understand their own problems in communicating and where their beef really lies, discuss that as opposed to turning many threads into something else just because of basic underlying issues. This goes for everyone.
so, everyone, resume telling everyone else what verses should mean to them.
Please do so, keeping to the topic at hand.
-
peace SC,
I don't think this thread is about symbolic vs literal. It was about whether a virgin birth is scientifically possible, which it is not. Tay brought up the symbolic vs literal thing, and I think that is what it comes down to, I guess.
Anyway, you're right. Thanks for the reminder. -
Peace guest,
Guest, you stated
- Consider the following two observation of the natural phenomenon
Observation 1 Egg and sperm of 20 year old female and male are brought together (input)
Natural law (system) reaction A beautiful creation of a human
Observation 2 Egg and sperm of another 20 year old female and male are brought together (input)
Natural law (system) reaction No creation of a human no matter how may time tried
These natural phenomenons are unquestionable
Takeaway An apparent contradiction. How do we resolve this? The solution to this problem may resolve the other phenomenon such as virgin birth, fire not burning Ibrahim, opening the sea for Moses etc.
I disagree. There is no contradiction unless you can provide in detail that all the variables were precisely the same. What we see on the outside is not encompassing and defining of what's going on within the body. I'm sure you're aware of this, and I don't mean to split hairs, but the premise is faulty as I see it.
Overall, I get your point and am happy to understand without agreeing. As I said in my initial reply, I don't see intervention as a contradiction but as an inconsistency. But that's just me.
The author of The Quran claims that He is the creator of all that we see and that which we do not see. That is the absolute truth. Science can not make such claim and hence it becomes irrelevant in the discussion of creation and our relationship with The God. Science is man made just like hadith is. Scientific evidence may be used to confirm the working of certain laws of the system but it is in no position validate the system. Otherwise we will have to give human the infallible attribute.
I agree. Science cannot validate the system.
The way I see it, God gave us signs. All around, within and without, are signs. In the book we call qur'an, we have guidance in understanding these signs and in understanding ourselves and how we can be most efficient in harmonizing ourselves with God. And God gave us the ability to decode these signs by sincere observation of nature(within and without) and sincere reading of the qur'an. Science is but one aspect of this ability.
Putting the tools to use, we get a picture, although ultimately imperfect, but a basic framework of what God wants us to see. So the basic framework is all we have to work with. And this framework is designed by God. So, for me, when I'm trying to understand the guidance provided and more than one interpretation can be taken from the text, I choose the interpretation that fits within the framework. That's really all I can do with what God has provided me. For me to sidestep and alter my own mind and soul in order to make an interpretation fit would be disengenuous and, frankly, cheating myself.
Peace,
Tay - Consider the following two observation of the natural phenomenon
-
Peace Nadia, Phoenix, all,
My apologies for sidetracking. My intention was to express why it was becoming futile to continue the debate when the opposing arguments were coming from different perspectives, but of course, that spun off into space. Hopefully, we've all grown thicker skin and can continue peacefully while understanding and respecting each other.
Peace,
Tay -
No problems Tay, Phoenix. peace
-
Wow, didnt this come at a good time at the year. Marry christmas yall, its a boy. well ofcourse its a boy.
Behold, the virgin birth (and yes, it's a son)
By Steve Connor, Science EditorPublished 21 December 2006
The world's largest lizard has astonished biologists by being able to produce offspring by an "immaculate" conception without the help of a male.
Two captive female Komodo dragons have had virgin births by a process called parthenogenesis, when an unfertilised egg develops into a normal embryo without being fertilised by a sperm.
The eggs of one of the lizards - a female called Flora at Chester Zoo - are due to hatch early in the new year, said Kevin Buley, one of the zoo's curators.
"Although other lizard species are known to be able to self-fertilise, this is the first time this has ever been reported in Komodo dragons," Mr Buley said.
"Essentially what we have here is an immaculate conception ... and it is a possibility that the incubating eggs could hatch around Christmas time," he said.
"We will be on the look out for shepherds, wise men and an unusually bright star over Chester Zoo."
The other female, called Sungai, lived at London Zoo until she died earlier this year of natural causes. However, DNA fingerprinting has shown that some of her offspring born in 2005 were the result of parthenogenesis.
"The fact that it has happened in two separate Komodo dragons, at two zoos and under different conditions suggests that parthenogenesis in Komodos is a lot more common than we realised," said Richard Gibson, curator of herpetology at London Zoo.
"If it can happen in captivity then the question is can it occur in the wild?" he said.
All the offspring produced by parthenogenesis are male which, unlike mammals, are the result of two identical sex chromosomes - in reptiles it is the females that have two different sex chromosomes. The study is published in Nature magazine.
A clutch of Sungai's eggs hatched in August 2005, two years after she had been kept with a visiting male. The zoo's keepers thought that she must have stored his sperm - a common occurrence among reptiles.
However, Mr Gibson was not convinced and decided to use DNA fingerprinting to resolve the mystery. The male offspring turned out to have the same genetic profile as their mother.
"I am delighted that the mysterious parentage of our Komodo dragon babies has been solved and that we have discovered something new to science at the same time," Mr Gibson said.
"This discovery also raises important questions about the natural history of dragons in the wild and will therefore help to safeguard the future of the species," he said.
Komodo dragons can grow up to 10ft long and are the only lizards that can eat prey that are bigger than themselves. They live on several islands in Indonesia but the wild population is small, fragmented and endangered by habitat loss.
One theory is that parthenogenesis allows Komodos to establish breeding colonies from sole females that have swum to distant islands. Although the parthenogenic offspring will be all males, they would be still able to mate with their own mother to produce both males and females in subsequent generations.
"Theoretically, a female Komodo dragon in the wild could swim to a new island and then establish an entirely new population of dragons," Mr Buley said.
The saliva of a Komodo dragon contains up to 50 species of bacteria and is virulently toxic - it often kills its prey by injuring the animal first and then guarding over it until septicaemia sets in.
who would have known? Jesus was a comodo dragon and not a frog as first thought.