Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Categories
UFS News Media Release Research
Years
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Months
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Previous Archive
01 March 2018 Photo Eugene Seegers
Theological faculty highlights reconciliation as Biblical imperative
Prof Bram van de Beek (Liturgist; Emeritus Professor, VU Amsterdam); Prof Fanie Snyman (Dean: Faculty of Theology and Religion, UFS); Prof Nelus Niemandt (Guest speaker; Department: Science of Religion and Missiology, University of Pretoria); and Prof Mary-Anne Plaatjies-Van Huffel (Guest speaker; Department of Systematic Theology and Ecclesiology, University of Stellenbosch) at the UFS theological faculty’s official opening in Bloemfontein.
Does the current South African context and reality still allow for discussions around the topic of forgiveness and reconciliation? This was one of the themes discussed at the annual opening and Theological Day of the Faculty of Theology and Religion at the University of the Free State (UFS), which experienced a record attendance figure this year.

After welcoming staff members from the broader university community and from within the faculty, as well as guest speakers and international visitors such as Prof Bram van de Beek from the Free University Amsterdam (the Netherlands) and Dr Stefan Fischer from the University of Vienna (Austria), Prof Fanie Snyman, Dean of the faculty, stated, “We want to welcome pastors, dominees, reverends, fathers, spiritual leaders from a variety of church denominations.” He added, “I would also like to extend a special word of welcome to alumni of this faculty, who have kept their interest in our faculty alive by being present here.”

Reconciliation: Biblical imperative
In his sermon, Prof Bram van de Beek (VU Amsterdam) pointed out that “reconciliation is the Christian way, the way of love; therefore, to serve others should be more important to us than serving ourselves.” He explained further that, as humans, we run the risk of merely thinking about what is best for us, but to be true followers of Christ, we need to let others take priority.

Prof Mary-Anne Plaatjies-Van Huffel from the Department of Systematic Theology and Ecclesiology at the University of Stellenbosch’s Faculty of Theology spoke on Moving from forgiveness to reconciliation—Reconciliation as a fundamental Biblical category. She expanded on the Old Testament understanding of reconciliation as a means of repentance, atonement, and — ultimately — forgiveness.

The Jewish festivals of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, as well as the Biblical events recorded between Jacob and Esau in Genesis Chapter 33 were cited as examples of this understanding. Prof Plaatjies-Van Huffel said, “Having to face a painful past is a prerequisite for reconciliation,” adding that “broken relationships are only restored by the grace of God, who is the Author of reconciliation.” However, the responsibility for carrying out this message to the world belongs to each Christian, who must individually actuate divine reconciliation by the example they set, she concluded.

The reality of the post-Zuma South African landscape
Prof Nelus Niemandt, from the Department of Science of Religion and Missiology at the University of Pretoria, presented a paper entitled Competing narraphors in the post-Zuma landscape. His presentation painted a vivid narrative of the enormously complex time of rapid, radical change with which we as humans are ill-equipped to cope or to which we cannot adapt quickly enough. He highlighted several examples of the paradoxes evident in the world today, such as our mobile worldwide society versus the mass displacement of humans which creates migrants and strangers across the globe, or a growing super-diversity that feeds increased nationalism, racism, or fundamentalism, all of which challenge any preconceptions we may have of reconciliation.

He concluded with this expression: “My hope is that the Faculty of Theology and Religion at the UFS will be such eloquent storytellers that they will shape the imagination with narraphors of Christ’s future Kingdom.”

News Archive

Stem cell research and human cloning: legal and ethical focal points
2004-07-29

   

(Summary of the inaugural lecture of Prof Hennie Oosthuizen, from the Department of Criminal and Medical Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of the Free State.)

 

In the light of stem cell research, research on embryo’s and human cloning it will be fatal for legal advisors and researchers in South Africa to ignore the benefits that new bio-medical development, through research, contain for this country.

Legal advisors across the world have various views on stem cell research and human cloning. In the USA there is no legislation that regulates stem cell research but a number of States adopted legislation that approves stem cell research. The British Parlement gave permission for research on embryonic stem cells, but determined that it must be monitored closely and the European Union is of the opinion that it will open a door for race purification and commercial exploitation of human beings.

In South Africa the Bill on National Health makes provision for therapeutical and non therapeutical research. It also makes provision for therapeutical embryonical stem cell research on fetuses, which is not older than 14 days, as well as for therapeutical cloning under certain circumstances subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill prohibits reproductive cloning.

Research on human embrio’s is a very controversial issue, here and in the rest of the world.

Researchers believe that the use of stem cell therapy could help to side-step the rejection of newly transplanted organs and tissue and if a bank for stem cell could be built, the shortage of organs for transplants would become something of the past. Stem cells could also be used for healing of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries.

Sources from which stem cells are obtained could also lead to further ethical issues. Stem cells are harvested from mature human cells and embryonic stem cells. Another source to be utilised is to take egg cells from the ovaries of aborted fetuses. This will be morally unacceptable for those against abortions. Linking a financial incentive to that could become more of a controversial issue because the woman’s decision to abort could be influenced. The ideal would be to rather use human fetus tissue from spontaneous abortions or extra-uterine pregnancies than induced abortions.

The potential to obtain stem cells from the blood of the umbilical cord, bone-marrow and fetus tissue and for these cells to arrange themselves is known for quite some time. Blood from the umbilical cord contains many stem cells, which is the origin of the body’s immune and blood system. It is beneficial to bank the blood of a newborn baby’s umbilical cord. Through stem cell transplants the baby or another family member’s life could be saved from future illnesses such as anemia, leukemia and metabolic storing disabilities as well as certain generic immuno disabilities.

The possibility to withdraw stem cells from human embrio’s and to grow them is more useable because it has more treatment possibilities.

With the birth of Dolly the sheep, communities strongly expressed their concern about the possibility that a new cloning technique such as the replacement of the core of a cell will be used in human reproduction. Embryonic splitting and core replacement are two well known techniques that are associated with the cloning process.

I differentiate between reproductive cloning – to create a cloned human embryo with the aim to bring about a pregnancy of a child that is identical to another individual – and therapeutically cloning – to create a cloned human embryo for research purposes and for healing human illnesses.

Worldwide people are debating whether to proceed with therapeutical cloning. There are people for and against it. The biggest ethical objection against therapeutical cloning is the termination of the development of a potential human being.

Children born from cloning will differ from each other. Factors such as the uterus environment and the environment in which the child is growing up will play a role. Cloning create unique children that will grow up to be unique individuals, just like me and you that will develop into a person, just like you and me. If we understand this scientific fact, most arguments against human cloning will disappear.

Infertility can be treated through in vitro conception. This process does not work for everyone. For some cloning is a revolutionary treatment method because it is the only method that does not require patients to produce sperm and egg cells. The same arguments that were used against in vitro conception in the past are now being used against cloning. It is years later and in vitro cloning is generally applied and accepted by society. I am of the opinion that the same will happen with regard to human cloning.

There is an argument that cloning must be prohibited because it is unsafe. Distorted ideas in this regard were proven wrong. Are these distorted ideas justified to question the safety of cloning and the cloning process you may ask. The answer, according to me, is a definite no. Human cloning does have many advantages. That includes assistance with infertility, prevention of Down Syndrome and recovery from leukemia.

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept