All Comments for: Ignorance as Blessing | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > December (Web-only)

Christianity Today, December (Web-only), 2008 |

THEOLOGY IN THE NEWS

Ignorance as Blessing

Foreknowledge: for God and not for us.

Collin Hansen | posted 12/01/2008 10:13AM

With scientific advances, sometimes you need to read between the lines. At first glance, all looks well with a successful new test developed by researchers at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. They ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

Rev. J. Shaffer

Posted: December 12, 2008 2:17 PM

"Testing children for genetic abnormalities gives concerned parents a measure of control over the situation. But abortion can only negate the pregnancy; it cannot make their children healthy." This is true. At this time, genetic testing can only show if there is a problem. . . In the future, however, if the people doing this research continue along the path they are following, it may become possible to reverse these genetic anomalies. Until then, the testing gives parents a way to discover whether they are going to have a healthy child or one that will be a burden not only to the parents but to society as well. Seems like a reasonable precaution to me. To denigrate this technology and it's uses is worse than ignorance. . . it is willing, voluntary stupidity. In my book, that is a sin greater than murder.

s-b-t

Posted: December 12, 2008 7:38 AM

With all due respect, I have a problem with one of the fundamental issues in this argument against the testing. Since when does foreknowledge end only after the child is born? If you take as a given that life begins at conception, and the human life carried in the mother is recognized as a separate being unto itself while still carried in the mother, how can you say there is no knowledge about it as a separate entity? Would not foreknowledge be the outcome of conception: that is, which sperm meets the egg? Now I agree that if doctors could determine that (beyond probability, that is), I can see how one would definitely have a problem. But testing a child after conception, and before it is born? Why is that abuse of some kind of foreknowledge?

Omar Doreste

Posted: December 12, 2008 6:34 AM

Oh yes, by all means let us careen across expressways with blindfolds on, lest we be frightened by the foreknowledge of the dangers that loom. "It's that these books threaten readers with a future no author can fully know with any certainty. " Sounds like a certain Book you may have heard about and furiously cited. A tidy little dispatch of everything that is and ever will be, through which people like you claim to know God's will.

ounbbl

Posted: December 10, 2008 5:28 PM

Now comes the question of 'when life begins'. Is this a difficult question? No, it shouldn't be and it cannot be. However, the answer from pro-abortion medical doctors (those performing and making money from it) and even the our Supreme Court judges is: 'we don't know'. I cannot imagine any ignorance blatant (actually lying) as this one. Recently on these CT article series I got another answer: In the beginning was 'I don't care'. In is a companion verse is the atheists' genesis. 'In the beginning was an accident' and 'Accidents were there' So, all these prenatal diagnosis will do is to provide 'abortion' on demand and at low cost, to make those people like Obama and Democrats happy.

Kevin

Posted: December 10, 2008 11:24 AM


I don't agree that foreknowledge is bad, although how people choose to use it might be good or bad. In that sense it's a tool, like a gun or a lead pipe or a computer. I doubt that the development of this technology somehow eluded the sovereignty of God.

Orlin

Posted: December 08, 2008 8:27 AM

Great article! Modern technology in the hands of sinful and God-hating people can produce unprecedented massacre .. as history shows.. and as Paul writes in 2 Timothy 3 that in the last days men will be lovers of self, arrogant, brutal, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness - and you can add to a great extent the Medical Genetic Research, pack it in with the whole Internet and mass media industry! Personally - I am looking forward to the end of this! Meanwhile lets pray and love with the Gospel those trapped in this Matrix!

mary	Posted: December 04, 2008 8:07 AM

As the world is in it's last days by Biblical standards and scientific findings of world's explanations as running out of fuels, holes in the atmosphere, go green, recylce etc which some I have been hearing since high school even-but there is no mistake that by anyones opinions or findings we are on a road to collapse; the economy(which just this year many would not have thought we would be this low in 8months. This article just goes along with the way the USA, always known as the blessed country, is losing God's favor. There is hope if we will rise to the challenge as 2 Chronicles verse puts it "If My people who are called by My name will repent and turn from their wicked ways , I will hear their cry and heal their land." Choosing what pregnancy to destroy and onto what sex,eyes color etc.. is not God's ways. He said He knew each one of us before we were formed in the womb.LET US PRAY and not let anything stand in the way of our prayers being heard. Take it serious to rise to our call

Kathy Ratkiewicz

Posted: December 03, 2008 9:39 PM

Currently, the abortion rate for a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome is 90%. With the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists making their recommendation that ALL pregnant women (regardless of age) be offered prenatal screening for Ds, the number of abortions due to a diagnosis of Ds could very possibly increase. I have read comments from many parents who have a child w/Ds who say that it makes them sick to think that if they had had a prenatal diagnosis, they might have chosen abortion...which is a sobering thought. How many other parents did make that decision and now regret it? My son with Down syndrome is 10 yrs old now. It bothers me that so many people in our society seem to think that he should not be alive. But what bothers me most is when those who call themselves Christians do not speak out against the deliberate targeting of babies with disabilities for death. Or against abortion in general, for that matter.

R.C.	Posted: December 03, 2008 12:28 PM


In the years to come, science will offer us even more disturbing news. But has that not always been the case?

Patricia

Posted: December 03, 2008 10:05 AM

This article sure ties in the topics of medical ethics and Divine Providence quite well. Why do some Christians have abortions? Basically, we are saddled with medical disasters they create financial ruin for the rest of the family. A child with genetic mutations will force a mother to stay at home when the rest of the family needs her income. In some cases the other children may be forced out of a private christian school and family savings for college and retirement will be jeapordized. Worse yet, what happens when the father looses his job after the mother stays at home? The good news is that there is a new drug call VX-770 that is offering Cystic Fibrosis patients and parents great hope. It is in the second phase of clinical trial testing. Today, CF patients are living into their 40s and having productive lives. Aborting CF children is not the cure for CF, research is.

Paul	Posted: December 03, 2008 8:02 AM

Dr. Roger commented that we cannot legislate morality but laws ARE morality. Morality is what leads us to seek, write and enforce laws. That is at least until we come to a law that lets the innocents be slaughtered, then you have a complete lack of morality. Also, who judges those that make such decisions? We don't and can't, that is God's job. We can however judge sin and call attention to it. That IS our job. Otherwise we have anarchy. The next argument for abortion is rape and incest. If you need to kill someone, kill the perpetrator, not the baby, he/she didn't do anything wrong. That leaves abortions to protect the health of the mother which amount to less than 2% of all abortions. Let's get rid the the 98% then we can talk about the 2%.

Jo	Posted: December 03, 2008 5:20 AM

Thank you, Mr. Hansen, for reminding us that God is God and WE are NOT. Apparently, according to the posts before mine, the reminder is greatly needed in this country. Our thirst for power and control is not just LIKE the sin in the Garden of Eden, it IS the sin, replayed moment by moment. As the sister-in-law and future guardian of a Down Syndrome adult, I can attest to great gifts available from the challenges provided by special needs children. Yes, it is HARD. Doing the right thing often is.

Felicia

Posted: December 02, 2008 9:03 PM

My husband and I were just talking about this very topic last week, when we learned that we were expecting another child. I had all my children in my 30s and will be 40 when this one is born. Each time my doctor suggested an amniocentisis, we always decided against it. Like Karen said, it would have made us worry. Plus, we didn't want to risk a miscarriage. God doesn't give us anything we can't handle!

jeffrey tchon (Registered User)

Posted: December 02, 2008 8:28 PM

Tony, that was mean spirited. If I chose to take the child God gave me, as many others have, that doesn't mean I chose to be ignorant, it means I don't feel I have the RIGHT to end a life that didn't suit me or my expectations. Chuck, but does that make it right? If it doesn't, then don't DO it. Whether or not someone else does is not our decision. Amazing how we want to make our selfish desires inevitable.

Karen perricone

Posted: December 02, 2008 8:05 PM


My husband and I didn't get any testing done but only because the results we could have been given would just have made us worry. Any time we think about using new technology we need to think hard about what we will do with the information.

John	Posted: December 02, 2008 3:49 PM


ExposingChristianity.com - Everything in Christianity has been taken from religions predating it by hundreds to thousands of years.

Dr Roger - Australia

Posted: December 02, 2008 3:30 PM

Tony, you show yourself to be an excellent example of a 'New Atheist' - all bluster and polemic without much substance and supporting argument. This is an issue of ethics and conscience for many Christians - a very thinking response in the context of our worldview and priorities, rather than a 'head in the sand' response. You're welcome to post with thoughtful, well-supported arguments, but otherwise I suggest you drag your knuckles off somewhere else.

A.G.	Posted: December 02, 2008 3:15 PM

This is obviously a very controversial and complex subject and there aren't easy answers. But I appreciate Collin Hansen's effort to help Christians reflect on the root of why we may do what we do as well as reflect on studies of what we (humans) actually do. Most often there are many sides to a story and if we don't honor each of those sides with serious reflection we will be fools rather then ignorant and the Bible has worse things to say about foolishness than ignorance.

Glenn

Posted: December 02, 2008 2:41 PM

Collin, for all your distrust of doom-sayers, you certainly paint a bleak picture of what people are likely to do with this new technology. However, I agree that people really want this knowledge to give them control over the situation. Personally, my wife and I were just fine to take what comes, and the Lord blessed us with two lovely and gentle children. While my daughter's braces and my son's penchant for video games are tiny trials next to the problems of families of kids with disabilities, I am no less conscious of the fact that things could have been much worse. I suppose my own attitude of taking what God gives me comes from having had two older step-brothers with Muscular Dystrophy -- one of whom shared my birthday. As Jesus said, we need to trust the Lord more and fear less.

tony	Posted: December 02, 2008 1:44 PM


onward christian ostriches, head down in the sand, with the cross of jesus, ignorance we demand. (to be sung to the tune of 'onward christian soldiers'

chuck

Posted: December 02, 2008 12:17 PM


Welcome to the land if inevitability. The technology exists, it will become commonplace and be commonly used. And those who object to it will be ignored.

Dr Roger - Australia

Posted: December 01, 2008 8:46 PM

This is a typical ethical scenario where technology outstrips ethics. The reality though is that Christians live in this world and these technologies are available to believers and non-believers alike. This is also a situation that Scripture doesn't speak clearly too, although the same principles apply to this situation as with other philosophical questions relating to the tension between medical technology and the sanctity of life. My position is that you can't legislate morality and as Christians we can't judge and critique the family decisions of other Christians, particularly if we haven't walked in the shoes of families who have a child with a severe disability. There is no clearly 'biblical' solution to the question about whether Christians should use this technology or not. The decision to avail oneself of these technologies should be left up to individual Christians and their families - they alone need to wrestle with God and themselves about the best course of action.

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment