We have been advised by some list members to exclude politics and religion from the pure subject of stem cell research. I regret to say that If I do, I must simultaneously and automatically exclude the subjects of Stem Cells and research. I am grateful to Ron for this historical perspective on the subject although it does not improve my tolerance of negativistic ignorance which I attribute to refusal to accept the facts of modern life. I am not totally convinced that some components of mankind have yet adapted to the use of opposable thumbs, but there is a bona fide opportunity with the advent of the XXI century. This orthodoxy and rigidity of religion does not exonerate any of those in current practice, but perhaps I ought to check with my rabbinate before I go on further. Michel Margosis 'Carpe Diem' ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peyton, Ronald" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 8:38 AM Subject: Historical Roots of Opposition to Stem-cell Research > As an ordained clergyman, I am perplexed and dismayed that religion, which > exists primarily to support, encourage and enhance life, would instead be > used to inhibit research which could lead to the enhancement and prolonging > of life, and yet is done in the name of standing up for life! Since when do > we elevate the importance of potential life (stem cells) over that of > actual, produced life - existing, breathing, walking, talking human beings? > > > Since religion exists to lessen suffering in the world, I can only conclude > that any religion that would discourage research that could lead to > lessening humanity's suffering (i.e., stem cell research that could lead to > cures for diseases that lead to tremendous suffering and eventual death), > can only be a false religion in that it is advocating the very opposite of > that for which religion exists. > > It saddens me when sufferer's are made to feel guilt for desiring a cure, > feeling they must choose between health and their eternal salvation, or when > people are made to feel selfish for desiring life, i.e., the editorial > Camilla referred to where the author accused sufferer's seeking cures of > being selfish and self-serving and that their "primary motivation is the > betterment of self." Since when was bettering oneself and seeking life and > health something selfish and sinful? > > I am reminded of the words spoken by one who many opponents of stem cell > research claim to admire, worship and follow: "I am come that they may have > life, and have it more abundantly." If seeking life (and seeking it more > abundantly in one that is free of disease, suffering and death) is a form of > selfishness, then it is a selfishness that the originator of Christianity > himself approved of and advocated, and wished for his followers. > > The idea that denying and devaluing one's body and health makes one somehow > more spiritual and less selfish has its roots in neoplatonism which made a > cleavage between the spirit and the flesh and led people to believe that to > nourish and enhance the spirit, they had to denigrate and deny the flesh. > Hebraic thought never made such a separation. Judaism had a wholistic view > of man, teaching that the spirit and body were to be respected, honored and > cherished as gifts of God. They were viewed as one, not split apart and > pitted one against the other as did neoplatonism. > > Understanding the history and rise of neoplatonism within Christianity and > it's continuing influence to this day will help people understand why > stem-cell research that hold such promise for humanity are controversial > even in our "enlightened" 20th century. Unfortunately, early Christianity > moved away from its Judaic roots and instead of viewing man wholistically, > embraced neoplatonism in the form of what became known as the contemptus > mundi (contempt for the world). Denying the body and anything physical was > thought to enhance the spiritual. Thus, a diseased body was to be ignored > rather than healed, since the flesh was itself "evil," and thus by ignoring > it's physical needs, the spirit within would be nurtured and prepared for > heaven. > > The human body and its basic desires and emotions were denigrated. Rather > than viewing the body and its desires as an expression of spirituality and a > gift of God, they were looked upon with fear and disdain, as something that > would hinder spiritual growth. An example is the natural desire to partake > of food that is pleasing to the palate. Eating food not only sustains life, > but adds to life's enjoyment as the taste buds are both tantalized and > satisfied. Because of the influence of neoplatonism upon the church, food > became viewed as good if used solely to sustain life, but was viewed as > feeding the "lower nature" if eaten for taste and enjoyment. Based on this > neoplatonic line of thinking, Beurrier assured his listeners at > Saint-Ettienne-du-Mont that the Lord "never ate any food for its flavor, but > out of pure necessity." > > The contemptus mundi, based on neoplatonic roots, in many respects became > the church's central message. This led to monasticism and flagellants, who > to this day in some countries during Easter whip their backs raw until the > blood runs down the street, believing they are imitating their Lord and > enhancing the spirit by literally destroying the flesh. > > The following taken passage taken from Angelo Torini's book, Brieve > Collezione Della Miseria dellal Umana Condizione, illustrates the church's > continual education toward self-hatred and self-despisement: > > Lothair (1, VIII, 1): "Look at the grasses and the trees, they produce > flowers, leaves and fruit, but all that you produce are nits, lice, and > worms. The former give out oil, wine and balm, but you, you exude saliva, > urine, and dung. The former emanate pleasant odors, but you give off an > abominable stench." > > Torini (XVII, 17-19): "What fruit do we bear? The pleasant and useful > fruit that we produce and to which we give birth are nits, fleas, lice and > worms. These are created by our bodies and in our bodies, and they are > continually born there. What aromatic spices and useful gums do we produce? > The snot, spittle, and stool that continually exude from the different parts > of our bodies. Which is why the blessed Bernard says: 'O man, if you stop > to consider all which passes through and spills out of your mouth, nose, > ears, and all the other orifices of your body, you will realize that there > is no dung heap more foul.'" > > No wonder St. Ignatius Loyola wrote "I am but a dunghill," (Ignatius of > Loyola, Scripta de sto Ignation, vol 1., p. 379 of the Monumenta historica > societatis Jesu) and the Carthusian monk Ludolph of Saxony went so far as to > state "Man is worse than the devil himself." (Ledolphe de Chartreaux, La > Grand vie de Jesus-Christ, vol 3, p. 79). The contemptus mundi exerted its > influence well into the eighteenth century, which is attested to by an > eighteenth century hymn titled "Against the World" which contains the > following stanza: "This body of decay deserves nothing but contempt." > > If the body and its desires are so evil, disgusting, nasty, and > reprehensible that it only serves to enhance the "flesh" to the detriment of > the "spirit," then why should we have any concern at all for our physical > health and well-being? We should ignore it and just focus on the "inner > man" and prepare for heaven by denigrating and denying the "outer body." > Such pessimistic thinking based on pagan neoplatonism is what has been > ingrained within people's thinking for centuries (by the church no less!), > and is why we're where we are at today when something as wonderful and > promising as stem cell research that could relieve much of humanity's > suffering is not quickly embraced, but instead becomes a matter of debate > and controversy. > > Luis de Leon wrote "Life is a dangerous voyage, and should be equally > despised. Since we are born in order to die, and since the ultimate end of > life is death, an early death can only bring an early end to our > suffering...It would have been best to have died at birth, and better still > never to have lived." (Obras, vol. III, 22 Exposicion de Job, XIV, 2, p. > 48). With such pessimistic thinking of mankind that dominated Western > Christianity from the thirteenth to the eighteenth century, is it any wonder > we're still suffering from it's baleful influence, and being denied > potential cures that are practically there for the embracing, if only those > influenced by neoplatonism would get out of the way! > > Ron (Chicago) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] > In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn