What Do You Believe is God’s View?

Yes, that would be a consequence of my logic - assuming the conception is done via artificial means, of course.

Conversely, your argument goes beyond simply saying that a child should be loved regardless of how they were conceived. You are arguing for actual adoption. It is possible to love a child w/o purposefully choosing to "circumvent God's plan" by officially including them in your family.

Arguing on the basis of "God's plan" is shaky to begin with. It assumes more than is actually stated by Scripture. Yet, if you are going to go that route, then you will also need to account for things like God commanding a brother to impregnate his widowed sister-in-law. Such instances put great doubt into your specific claims of "God's plan" for conception.

 

I agree. However, you are missing my point. By the couple choosing to go ahead with the adoption, they are also circumvention God's plan for the family. They may not circumvent it with regards to conception, but they are circumventing with regards to having and raising the child. After all, just as its not part of God's plan for a child to be conceived by a non-couple, it is also not part of God's plan for a child to be raised by those not their parents.

I am not eluding to it being wrong to adopt except to allow that you might consider it wrong to adopt in some cases. For instance, you seemed to have difficulty with allowing a single person to adopt. I am just trying to acknowledge this reticence on your part.

 

Not really because

you are implying that since all children are a blessing we can't question how they are conceived. Maybe that is not what you meant, but it was the point you were making.

You have a point, instead of Gods plan better phrasing would probably be, God's instruction for us, or biblical instructions.

 

Ok, with your retraction I withdraw the problem i had with your position.

At the same time I will still note that the issue of homosexual couples is a red herring. For one, homosexual couples are simply two single people living a homosexual lifestyle. The issue is not their homosexuality per se, or even their being a "couple". Instead, the issue is their lifestyle. It would probably be more accurate to say that you don't feel it God's will for a single person who lives a blatantly sinful lifestyle to have a child. Agreed?

 

I think I can agree with that, although since the world sees them as a couple I think that designation also applies.

 

I was just trying to make the same level of assumptions you were making - that what is explicitly wrong is assumed to override what is tacitly acceptable.

So, it is not explicitly against God's will to adopt, and the fact that we are told to love orphans implies that it is acceptable. However, it is explicitly against God's will to kidnap or murder. Hence, while adopting might be acceptable, adopting a child you obtained by kidnapping or murdering is not.

Likewise, it is not explicitly against God's will for a single person to have a child, and a child being a blessing might implicitly indicate is acceptable. However, it is explicitly against God's will for a single person to be one flesh with another person. Hence, having a child as single person is acceptable, but not by using the means of sex outside of marriage.

I am just trying to apply your logic as in the same manner you do with the same set of overall assumptions. So, unless you disagree that the explicit wrong overrides considerations of the implicit good, my point stands. Just as you don't feel that good of adopting overrides any explicit wrongs in coming to that point, so I assume the same standards for my argument about a single person having a child.

So what are God's instructions for us in the area of conceiving?

 

In as far as language goes, absolutely. It would be absurd to refuse to call them a couple. My point was to bring out the fact that the phrasing clouds the central philosophical issues. The issue is not their coupleship or their homosexuality, but their blatant sinful lifestyle. I could go into this more, but I think we agree on the main points so i won't go down that rabbit trail any further. Let's just agree that the homosexual couple issue is a separate one.

 

We are going in circles here, sorry if I am not making myself clear.

I separate the issue of adoption and planning to conceive a child. IMHO they are not they same.

As far as do we have any biblical instructions for conceiving a child, I think we do through a Godly union of a husband and a wife, period.

 

Out of left Field

Well I have been reading this thread as it has been going along.

To honestly say I don't know what God says on the matter but that he does know for a fact if he would be pleased or not.

We should agree to disagree on this as this are various points that seem to keep going in circles.

But I would like to raise just one question..

I have never had children and personally for myself I would never take this course of action to have a child.
I would just take it that God has something else in store for me and I'm to wait patiently to see what it is.
I wanted a child for a long time and when I was married (now divorced) I couldn't understand why I wasn't going to have one. No matter what I prayed to God on this matter.
Then 3 yrs later I believe he gave me the answer of why it wasn't meant to be.
You see when we wait patiently God brings us to where he wants us and then we know we are being obedient.
My Mom had become bedridden and if I had a child there would have been no way I would have been able to take care of both my Mom and a child.
My Mom ended up passing away and still am taking care of people (which now includes myself.

But the question I want to raise is this if anyone knows..When going for this sperm donation route am I correct that the Mom to be just chooses the man from a book without knowing his name or address or anything status on him for future reference?
Why would a woman want to go through if the baby should have some future sickness or disease and needs the father and may not be able to find him?
I believe the father would have the right to refuse. Am I correct?

But I said at the beginning only God knows for sure what pleases him and what doesn't.
Just pray on this matter i sayraying:

 

I agree that they are not the same. What I point out is that the reasoning for allowing/disallowing them is the same in both cases. I am using this fact to examine your thinking and approach to see if its consistent. You say they are different and I agree. You say they are separate and I ask how so. So far there has been no good reason given for viewing them as totally separate issues. They are related in the fact that the logic applied to both is essentially the same.

Here is where I have a problem. You say "biblical instruction", implying something explicit in Scripture. Yet when you tell what these instructions are, you resort to describing them in terms of what you think. Where do you derive these instructions from?

I am trying to hold a distinction between what I think about Scripture and what Scripture actually says.

 

IMO, we haven't yet come to the point. In my book, agreeing to disagree comes only after understanding has been reached. When both sides can say "Ok, I understand where you are coming from - I just disagree." then they can agree to disagree. Otherwise, agreeing to disagree simply means that one or both is tired of trying to understand.

But thats just me.