I'm sorry but I just don't see the correlation between the two. This medical advancement is not a religious issue in any way. I don't see it any different than an incubator for a premature birth. It is not man trying to be defiant to God. It is simply an alternate way to gestate a child. There is nothing immoral about it. It is not evil. It does not produce devil babies.
Artificial Children?
- Thread starter Apologia
- Start date
It is simply bypassing God's way. Scientific knowledge without Godly morality has the potential for hideous eventualities.
Something that i was thinking about last night is that the amniotic fluid is a protection for the baby in many ways and it may even help the baby grow...so if the baby develops outside of the womb, then they may have issues with their skin. The scientists may have to even duplicate that.....the question is, will they ever get far enough to do this with a human baby...and not just animals?
Where sin abounds....grace much more abounds. Time to be praying in agreement for God to heal our land as we as the Body of Christ seek to do His Will and bring more into His Kingdom
Maybe its more the attitude of the hearts of the scientists and them opening the door to take credit where credit is not due....because they have to begin with something God created... eggs and sperm
@ASUK - Isn't medical advancement a religious issue? I would say that everything in life is a religious issue for the believer. It a test for me to say this, but we should be using godly discernment about everything, especially the choices we make personally. There's been a range of arguments put forward saying that the medical science under discussion is a trespass against God, in effect. I would agree with that, though, as I've said earlier, the child would be no different from one born naturally, in the sight of God. The evil is done by the world which puts so much effort into trying to remove God from the equation of life, bit by bit. I don't think this is the end of a journey, but just another step in infidelity.
On what basis do you make that claim? Do you have scripture that supports this?
When it comes to the gospel and condemnation the Old is obsolete, we are not under law but grace.
Rom 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.
Rom 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—
Rom 3:22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Rom 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
Rom 3:26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Rom 3:27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Rom 3:29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
Rom 3:30 since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
Rom 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
The basis is really that the believer should be discerning about everything. One scripture which springs to mind is Ezekiel 44:23: "And they shall teach my people the difference between holy and profane, and cause them to discern between unclean and clean."
Amen, another good one.
Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Rom 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
Rom 11:8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear
unto this day.You have taken this passage completely out of context.
How d'you mean, @ASUK? I'm sure there are better scriptures to illustrate the point, but that's really all that I wanted to show: that under the old covenant, it was necessary to know the difference between holy and profane, clean and unclean. Under the new covenant, the same responsibility is on the believer, though of course not as under the Law. That was all I wanted to suggest - that everything the believer comes up against has to be differentiated and discerned. So, whether or not this medical science which we're talking about is good or bad, we ought to make a judgement about it.
Everything should be differentiated and discerned but it is obvious that the consensus here is that it IS unclean and unholy.
I don't see how anyone can definitively conclude that artificial gestation is unholy.
If a woman is prone to having miscarriages but could successfully have a child this way then is that not a good thing?
I look at advancements in science as a good thing unless proven otherwise. An example of something that I don't like is the invention of the atomic bomb. It obliterates all life around it. If it aided life I would be glad to have it around.
Amen, another good one.
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear
Truely a warm welcome to you Robert Williams, and thank you for your perceptive contribution.
Is it possible that the Christian has only one mandatory deontological code/covenant and a second voluntary deontological covenant which is elected, that also elects to emulate the mind of Christ; for our second covenant, though laden with a myriad of caveats of wickedness and precepts for righteousness, is our electable challenge to adopt the mind of Christ our Lord without the aid of compulsory condemnation of men to force or threat what is right outside the boundaries of aggression. Thus we have no grounds to condemn another, save our reactive actions to despotic violence with our Lords guidance; for our election of mandates in the second covenant would issue forth the non-judgmental love of Christ which is our actionable legacy.
Can we agree that your scriptural citations depict our sanctification process with accuracy in the confines of election, also as we elect to obey to total dedication our two primary mandates of love, which also provide the hinges for our covenant? Thus our primary work is love, and by grace our election process matures in that love; our spiritual maturity in the confines of election then congeals to uphold the law. For I would suggest the eternal law of God has not changed, yet our covenant did, and though the personality of God is immutable, our relationship dynamic has changed radically for the better since Christ shed his blood on purpose so that election would replace compulsion.
If you ask a clear question in English, I might be able to answer you.
I'm sure you are a really smart fella with that vocabulary but do you talk like that everyday? I really have to pay attention when I'm reading your posts. I don't want you to get offended by me commenting on this but I'm just curious if it's your daily speech.
No I do not believe he has.
Of course he has. Artificial wombs have nothing to do with sweaty clothes.
Something that i have been praying and thinking about is how many babies are born everyday with birth defects. And all of is because of man's interventon. We have hormones in some of our meats, some of our vegetables are just like eating insecticides, our farmers are not allowed to let the land rest as God intended...so they end up putting fertilizer in the dirt which eventually spills into our drinking water. So many people are on some kind of pill for some reason or another where the side effects are sometimes worse than the issue itself. And most of the processed food is not even good enough to be fed to the rats.
So what makes the scientific world think that this will turn out any good. When a baby in in the protecton of the womb...the baby and the mother form a bond. Who or what is that baby going to bond with in the false womb or whatever that they decide to use to help the baby to grow. Or is it going to come out feeling alone and scared and whathaveyou...and what kind of deformities will it have? And obtw...will the Church accept this little one as one of its own or will it say that it is an abomination like some of the people that it turns away now?
So what makes the scientific world think that this will turn out any good. When a baby in in the protecton of the womb...the baby and the mother form a bond. Who or what is that baby going to bond with in the false womb or whatever that they decide to use to help the baby to grow. Or is it going to come out feeling alone and scared and whathaveyou...and what kind of deformities will it have? And obtw...will the Church accept this little one as one of its own or will it say that it is an abomination like some of the people that it turns away now?