h1

Bible verses on human enhancement

Sunday, 13 July, 2008

This is a list of all the bible verses that I’ve seen used, or thought could be used, against transhumanism. They are sorted in by book, chapter and verse. The quoted text is from the King James Version (KJV), but the link for each verse goes to the New Living Translation (NLT), so if you don’t understand the Biblical English of the KJV, try the more modern translation given under the link.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

If humans are the creation of God, then one could argue that to start changing that creation is trespassing on divine territory. Likewise, if man is made in God’s image, then to change man is to go away from the image in which God made us, or perhaps even blasphemous. But this line of reasoning assumes that those parts which may be enhanced are in the image of God. Is our intelligence resemblant of God’s intellect? Are our muscles made to be similar to God’s? If not, then how can changing them be wrong? Nonetheless, the concept of imago Dei is a central one in Christian bioethics.

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

In a similar vein to the above argument, one could argue that because the creation of God is very good, then changing it can only make things worse. On closer inspection, clearly this does not follow from the above verse. There is little evidence to assume that humans would be changing a part of nature that was considered ‘very good’ (since the Fall of Man, not everything is considered ‘very good’ by God), nor that changing it would necessarily spoil its goodness (would not an ‘enhancement’ possibly make it better).

Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

This verse (and the New Testament repetitions of it) is loved by many religious groups against cloning (and even IVF, depending on the interpretation), because it is a Biblical ordainment that reproduction should occur between a woman and a man, when they become one flesh. Of course, this depends entirely on the interpretation. 1 Corinthians 6:16 uses ‘one flesh’ to simply mean having sex. So, at best I can see a moral prescription for having sex with one’s wife, but I don’t see anything there about reproduction having to occur at the same time. ‘Test-tube’ babies, designer babies and even clones would still have a mother and a father (in the case of the clones, the genetic mother and father, strictly speaking, will be the parents of the person who was cloned. But genetic parenthood is not important – social parenthood, the caring and loving of the child, is).

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Here the rationale for capital punishment is that murder is destroying that which God created in his own image, so perhaps one could apply that logic to human enhancement which opts to replace parts of God’s image in humans. Taken to an extreme, this could lead to capital punishment for those changing their genomes or replacing parts of their bodies – not good news for patients of gene therapy or recipients of prosthetic limbs. Also, while it is clear that destroying an entire human being would destroy that which was created in God’s image, it is not clear whether changing just a few parts of human body or nature would also be changing that which was created in God’s image.

Psalm 139:13-16 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

This psalm offers a double-whammy against human enhancement. First, it says that we are wonderfully made, which casts doubt over our ability to do better (however, it doesn’t say we shouldn’t try). Second, the mention of development inside the womb (apparently the human uterus is the lowest part of the earth) is one that pro-lifers may use to argue against the many embryo-destructive experiments that would be required to develop biotechnological human enhancement.

Isaiah 45:9-12 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?

Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me. I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

Here is yet another argument against changing what God has created. These verses indicates that we shouldn’t second-guess God, because he made the earth and the heavens, so must be competent in making humans. But when a human is born with a genetic abnormality, we do everything we can to cure it.  This argument seems to go too far, stating we should have a ‘hands-off’ approach to our bodies and let God do it all, which is more than we usually will do.

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee.

This is not so much against human enhancement per se, but is often used to illustrate the wrongness of research on human embryos. This verse speaks of how God knew us before we were even born, or even conceived. This would suggest that someone begins (in God’s eyes) before conception, which could lead to the argument that abstaining from sex is killing a person. But seeing as that wouldn’t lead to a person (a ‘thee’ for God to talk to), this verse does nothing to indicate that the embryo is when “human life” begins. So therefore doesn’t prove that embryo-destructive means to enhancement are wrong.

Ecclesiastes 7:13 Consider the work of God: for who can make that straight, which he hath made crooked?

One could argue that this verse indicates we should not be tampering with what God ‘hath made crooked’. However, it appears to me to be arguing that we cannot, not that we should not, change what God has done. Also, this verse appears to claim medicine is impossible or sacrilegious, unless of course one believes that God did not make diseases (and that they were things we ‘hath made crooked’). This verse also makes the title sequence of Gattaca.

Mark 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

In much the same way as the above verse from Ecclesiastes, this verse argues that man has no place messing with what God has done. However, this could easily be claimed to be out of context, because when Jesus says the above verse, he does so about divorce, not any part of the human body, or else it would make all surgical incisions akin to immoral acts.

Luke 5:31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.

This verse appears to argue for a therapy-enhancement distinction. However, again this may be out of context, as Jesus says the above as an analogy for his behaviour around sinners, not as a recommendation or teaching.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

This suggests that any defilement of the body will result in God destroying that person, which may seem like bad news for human enhancement, but note that the precise defilements are not listed here.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

This verse, like the one before it, appears to kill any argument for bodily autonomy. Although, given that Christians often shave, cut their hair and otherwise control their own body, it is hard to say that exactly what God’s role is in making decisions about what our body can be used for. The context of this verse is talking about fornication, so it might be out of context in a bioethics debate.

I Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

Another verse on the mixing of animals and humans. This verse needs to be paired with another verse, such as Genesis 1:31 or Mark 10:9, in order to argue that what God has created is good and that we should leave it that way. The differences between man and the animals are not an argument against transgenic humans, but this requires evidence that these differences are sacred.

II Corinthians 12:9-10 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

The apostle Paul seems here to be suggesting not only that enhancement is bad, but so is anything that takes away illness and weakness. This is so far removed from how most Christians act that it is hardly worth a response. This argument will fall just like that which argued the pain of childbirth was good and not to be attenuated with anaesthesia.

Ephesians 5:29-30 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

Paul gives the impression that nobody hates his own flesh, even though he writes of the ‘vile body’ to the Phillipians (see below). Nonetheless, this could be an argument against thinking that the current human state is not the optimum. However, I think that the most nourishing and cherishing thing we could do the our bodies is to enhance them so they don’t get sick or injured ever, and live for as long as possible. Also, this is actually an analogy for loving other people, so the ‘out of context’ retort could be given again for this.

Phillipians 3:20-21 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

If Jesus is going to enhance us, perhaps we are ‘playing God’ (or ‘playing Jesus’) by enhancing it ourselves. Then again, if Jesus is perfect, then no matter what we do there will still be something left for Jesus to enhance in us.

Philippians 4:11 Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.

This could be an argument against somatic enhancement, as it argues that we should be content to be who we are. Yet, it seems this may also apply to those born with disabilities, and given that we attempt to heal such people, it seems too over-reaching with such an interpretation.

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment

This is primarily against radical life extension, but possibly with support from Genesis 6:3, this could be used against any form of life extension that pushes the lifespan above 120 years. However, a few people already live over 120 years and we don’t kill them, so perhaps this is an unlikely interpretation. Further, provided we are alive the possibility of death exists, and so if God wants people to die, he should have no problem arranging it.

James 3:9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

This is a New Testament verse re-affirming the argument made in Genesis 1, that men are made in the likeness of God. This means that even after the Fall of Man, we humans are still possessing the imago Dei. This fact does not, however, mean that any enhancement we have would remove this.

—–

This page is meant as a reference. Any other verses, or new takes on scripture already mentioned, will be added to this post. Feel free to comment if you have seen another piece of scripture used against human enhancement. I will make another list sometime of verses supportive of human enhancement technologies.

Advertisements

32 comments

  1. Most of the bible verses quoted here shouldn’t actually have been used, because the enterpretation of them has been literal rather than the deeper intention.

    “Man has been made in God’s image”
    Means that we have feelings.

    Even though your attitude annoys me somewhat, I still find reading your stuff interesting

    No hard feelings


  2. I’m aware that many of those verses I used were interpreted literally, but I believe at least some people do indeed interpret them literally. I did a lot of reading of theological debates on biotechnology before I posted this, in order to source the verses I’ve seen used in their arguments. Perhaps I should have provided references for where I saw those arguments used?


  3. just wondering if you have any quotes from the bible about jesus saying that we can heal ourselves and do whaT he did


    • terry, In John Chapter 10 verse one the bible states “And when he had called unto him 12 disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manners of sickness and all manner of disease. He never said that we could do what he did, but he gave his disciples some power through him to minister to others. He wanted us to heal others through HIS power and glory not things of man or the flesh.


    • Terry, 2 Timothy 2:14-16 says (King James Version) 14″Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.15 Study to thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.” I have given these verses to say that I will not be drawn into foolish debates over the answer that I am about to give to your question.
      Yes, Jesus called 12 disciples and endued them with power, as Kelsey stated. HOWEVER, that is NOT the end of His enduing with power. You see, in the same book of John, in chapter 14, verse 12, Jesus said, ” Verily, verily I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do ; because I go unto my Father.”
      While Jesus was addressing the 12 disciples here, He made it clear that the “He” to which He was referring was ANY person who believes, because He further goes on to state that He will pray to the Father that HE would send “another Comforter” which is the Holy Spirit. We all know that when the Holy Spirit fell upon the disciples on the Day of Pentecost, as was promised in this chapter while Jesus was speaking to the disciples, the Holy Spirit fell upon EVERYONE in that room, not JUST the disciples. Therefore, the promises made in this chapter were to ALL who would believe, and not just to the 12 men there that day.


  4. Thank You to the poster.

    I was looking for some of the scriptures about the temple of God and us and could not find it easily.

    So Thank You Once Again!.

    God Bless & Take Care.
    ~Nicholas


  5. I am doing a report on genetic engineering in science and what the Bible has to say about it. The verse, Ecclesiastes 7:13 “Consider the work of God: for who can make that straight, which he hath made crooked?” catches my attention and makes me think about it. It’s the best Bible verse I’ve found so far about it. Does anyone know of any other Bible verses that have to do with genetic engineering?


  6. You have brought up many good points; I would have to say that I have never heard most of these arguments come from Christians (or, sadly enough, many other arguments/defenses of the faith as well). That being said, as a Christian myself I would like to address some of your rebuttals to these arguments, or the arguments themselves.

    Genesis 1:27 – IMO and and that of most Christian theologians today, you are right to challenge the idea that we are physically created in God’s image. Christian doctrine holds that God exists in ways we cannot even comprehend, beyond the finite limits of our physically-based universe. I would not dare limit this verse to saying we are created in His physical image; because I believe He exists outside our universe, I also believe we interact with Him in a non-physical manner, meaning that the part of us by which we interact with God, namely the spirit (inherently non-physical) is the part of us that is created in His image. This is something that to my knowledge no human can manipulate or change. Thus this verse can’t be used to argue against physical enhancement.

    Genesis 1:31 – Your logic here is impeccable. After the fall of man, nothing was “very good” any more. The universe is in a state of constant decay (First Law of Thermodynamics!), and thus our bodies continually worsen as generations go on. You could argue that the use of modern medication is temporary physical enhancement, and few would say that it’s unethical or unbiblical to take Tylenol or the like. Another enhancement would be a bionic hand or leg, which many have to combat disabilities, and I can’t think of a single time I heard anybody ever complain about someone tampering with “God’s image” in those cases!

    Genesis 2:24 – I see this verse being an argument for heterosexuality, and possibly a segway into an argument for reproduction only by use of a man and a woman’s genetic material (as opposed to two women or two men), whether through natural sex or IVF…as for cloning, I would have to say this verse probably does nothing for or against the concept.

    Genesis 9:6 – I go back to my opinion on being made in God’s image for this one. The physical body houses the spiritual; as far as we know, there is no way for the spirit to interact with the physical world around us without the human body. There are many verses that point to the spirit being an immortal part of us; therefore the argument that killing the body kills the spirit as well shouldn’t come into play here. What this verse is saying doesn’t need too deep of a study; killing the physical body effectively ends the spirit’s life on earth. The spirit moves on to judgment before God, according to Christian beliefs. This can open up a whole new can of worms about salvation and so forth, but sticking to the basics, Christian doctrine holds that only God has the right to choose who lives and who dies. He allows humans to be instruments of His will on earth, such as governments (see Romans 13), so this verse is in reference to unordained killing. This right stems from the doctrine that by killing someone we cut short his/her chances of coming to salvation through Christ, and again only God has the right to decide for how long to extend that invitation to any person. Applying this verse to cloning, I argue that it is very wasteful because of the experimental process required to obtain one successfully developing fertilized egg (and therapeutic cloning kills that one as well), Christian doctrine (given the belief that physical life begins at conception) summarily opposes this process.

    Psalm 139:13-16 – I would say that the double whammy you refer to here is a less damaging attempt at cloning than construed. Being “wonderfully made” is typically interpreted as humans being unique among all creatures on earth, being the only creatures with higher sentience. As this is a controversial subject in and of itself, I’ll stick with the world “belief” here. Christian belief is that lower-sentient creatures have a body and soul (the soul being the ‘sentient’ part that can’t be seen, heard, felt, etc., but the effects of which can be observed), while humans have a body, soul and spirit. The spirit is what sets us apart and is one way to interpret “wonderfully made.” Another interpretation can be that in the womb, we are in a near-perfect state, by which I mean from the moment of conception on we are undergoing constant entropy and thus our bodies are constantly repairing and rebuilding. As we age, our bodies become less and less effective in repairs. This is another way of interpreting “wonderfully made,” in that we are made perfectly but from the start we are slowly dying. The second part of your double whammy is not very strong either; you seem to be of the opinion that embryo-destructive experiments are not a destruction of human life. You will find that even the United States’ opinion of this is in line with the pro-lifers; in front of the UN, a US delegate made a speech stating that the US sees cloning and stem cell techniques involving the deaths of “nascent human life” to be devaluing to human life and “morally abhorrent.”

    Isaiah 45:9-12 – Again, what God made perfect, Christian doctrine holds that sin has corrupted and thus it is no longer perfect. This verse, when read in context and understood in light of the potter/clay analogy, is actually referring to people resisting God’s work in shaping the direction of their lives.

    Jeremiah 1:5 – I’d say this verse is pretty self-explanatory. As for the “before I formed thee” part…this is in reference to God being omniscient and knowing exactly how He is going to create each person before they are even conceived, and how their lives are going to play out. Again, conception is considered to be the beginning of both spiritual and physical life, but the death of the unborn baby, at any stage, is still only a physical death, with the spirit surviving. You might ask, does the spirit of an unborn baby go to be judged? Not according to Christian doctrine. There is the age of accountability, which isn’t a set number but rather considered to be subjective, dependent on the mental and spiritual development of each person. When a person’s self-awareness has developed to the point that he begins to ask serious questions of not only where he/she came from, but also what happens to them once they die, they have either reached or are close to the age of accountability. This point of their development is where they should start to wonder how they and everything around them were created, and this naturally leads to wondering about the existence of something greater than themselves. Once they do, they should ideally realize that there has to be something greater than themselves, and are expected to put their faith in that. This is actually a very controversial and interesting discussion even among Christians (think of a young child left to himself on a desert island who after say the age of 4 never again has human contact nor ever taught any concept of God or any higher being; how could he be judged after death for not trusting in a God he could never have heard about?)

    Ecclesiastes 7:13 and Mark 10:9 relate to my discussion of Isaiah 45:9-12 and Genesis 1:31.

    Luke 5:31 – I agree, just an analogy.

    1 Cor. 3:16-17, 6:19-20 – The idea of defilement here is using the human body in any way/for any thing other than its intended use/purpose. This would cover things such as homosexuality, bestiality, self-inflicted pain, prostitution, etc. I would actually argue that physical enhancement betters the body and brings it closer to its pre-fall of man capability, thus better able to fulfill its intended purposes!

    1 Cor. 15:39 – I’d say this borders non-application to human enhancement; this verse is typically used to show that God established the idea of different kinds of animals (mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, invertebrates) and that they are different from humans. As for mixing animals and humans, that goes beyond my argument of restoring humans to their pre-corrupted, pre-fall of man physical state. Given the risks involved in experimentation (i.e. hundreds or thousands of aborted babies, failed, mangled or defected subjects, etc.), I’d say that the verses more applicable to mixing animals and humans are the ones dealing with killing other humans.

    II Cor. 12:9-10 – Paul here is referring specifically to his own infirmities, rather than saying that it is better to be impaired than made better. If you had bothered to read the life of Paul, you would see that he was given some sort of disability, not specifically named, by God, for which he gave God the glory. The idea here is that Paul was a very prideful man before his conversion to Christianity, and he was the most avid persecutor of the church during his day. He was blinded by God to humble him enough so that he would listen to what God had in store for him, should he choose to follow Him. Paul was so humbled that God had chosen to give him a second chance when He could have simply ended his life, that he committed his entire life to spreading the gospel. He was given his sight back, but had a permanent disability of some kind that reminded him his entire life that in his weakness, God was made strong and glorified. Paul therefore found opportunity to rejoice in his illness, rather than to be bitter and hateful.

    Ephesians 5:29-30 – You’re right; it’s out of context.

    Phil. 3:20-21 – I don’t think we’re playing God until we start trying to create new species of men (like humans with fish DNA or avian DNA). I also seriously doubt that we’ll ever reach a point in science where we can make a human being live forever. At some point entropy WILL win out, we WILL die. And the changing of the vile body, is in reference to the spirit leaving the physical body behind on earth and (if judged to have accepted Christ as Saviour) joining the Lord in heaven. What the glorified body will be exactly, is unknown beyond the concept that it will be sin-free; it’s a common belief that Heaven is a physical place most likely outside our universe where spiritual bodies are made manifest in physical appearance, and that’s what the glorified body means.

    Phil. 4:11 – Paul here is actually referring to his state in life (physical location, wealthy vs. impoverished, etc.) Paul was both wealthy and extremely influential within the Roman empire before his conversion, and afterward he was very outspoken for his faith. He was imprisoned a number of times, and he used much of his wealth to further the cause of the Christian church. Many expected him to be bitter that the Lord had allowed his plot in life to go from wealthy to poor, from a high social status to a wanted man and a prisoner at times (eventually executed). This is his response, that no matter what state he was in, he was going to be content with the hand dealt him in life.

    Hebrews 9:27 – The idea of 120 years here, is that God saw the evils man was capable of, and decided that the human life span would be reduced (it’s a very likely possibility that through Noah, the father of all humans today via the flood, had a genetic defect introduced by God, that over millenia slowly reduced the body’s average lifespan to roughly 120 years or less). I wouldn’t see this verse as saying attempting to extend the average life span of humans is sinful, just that God knows when every person is going to die and their spirit moved on to face judgment. Think about the average life span 500 years ago; most people were lucky if they were able to pass 40 or 45 years! Simple personal hygiene and advances in social hygienic practices (i.e. city sanitation systems) did much to improve that number, and it has steadily increased over the years through advances in medical practices and understanding. I don’t ever hear anyone complaining that our cities are too clean and causing us to live too long!

    James 3:9 – I completely agree.

    In closing, I am not at all disagreeing with your support of human enhancement; I believe there’s certain limits and that there are certain practices which should be avoided because of the moral and ethical implications, but there are many advances conceived by man that have not yet come to fruition which I would have no problem with myself. I also believe there’s no solid evidence that Christianity is in conflict with human enhancement in general. I have not yet looked to see if you have a list of verses to support enhancement, but I am very interested to see what you come up with!


    • Somehow you skipped right over Genesis 6 which is where you will find that interference in God’s original design was tainted by fallen angels. Look closely at scripture and see this tainted race God has been trying to change back to his image ever since. Look up scripture on ” they mingled themselves” and I think you will find that very interesting. Now this is where enhancement gets interesting and to the real core of which changes and enhancements God forbids. Just something to look into.


  7. Well, this just shows how bible is obsolete and how it limits us in achieving a better life. If a doctor cures us, is that interfering in god’s work? If we make a better life and make us living longer, would that mess with god’s plans? The bible says that there were people who lived almost thousand years, would we do something wrong if we make humans live that long (again)? The bible is obsolete and wrong and it should be put aside.


    • This is no evidence whatsoever that the Bible is obsolete. That you would make such a blanket statement about the veracity of the Bible shows you are simply repeating what you have heard others say. Sickness and disease is not the work of God, but rather a result of an ever-increasingly entropic universe, in which all systems inevitably tend toward decay and chaos. Doctors, by intervening in natural processes that would kill or harm, are simply correcting this problem, which Christians believe to be a by-product of the curse God allowed to befall His creation due to the sin which had corrupted it.

      If only we could make humans live that long again! It’s true that mankind once had an average lifespan of a few hundred years or more. This average decreased over the millenia to a mere 30-40 years during the medieval times, when thousands of years of genetic corruption and environmental wear and tear combined with extremely poor standards of living and hygiene. Note that in the 500 years since, we have only managed to double that average with all the advances in hygiene, medicine and technology at our disposal today.


      • It’s true that mankind once had an average lifespan of a few hundred years or more.

        Speaking of ‘blanket statements’ for which there ‘is no evidence whatsoever’….


  8. I’m not sure what you’re implying by your last post, but if you’re saying that I’ve made a blanket statement without evidence, please point it out, as I try to avoid doing so whenever I am aware of it.


    • All available evidence points to humans having much reduced lifespans in the past than today. There is no good evidence for humans living over ‘a few hundred years’ at any point in history.


  9. There actually is one very good piece of non-biblical, non-religious evidence, an ancient tablet called the Sumerian King List, which is an account of generations of Sumerian kings (which were contemporaries of the Genesis time period) and includes a time reference to a flood. The numerical parallels between the list and the Genesis account of lifespans before and after the Great Flood would be hard to explain away.


  10. what are the christian beleifs for and against genetic modification towards animals??


    • Interesting question, but beyond the scope of this blog. I suggest checking out books on that topic from a library – there are many such books.


  11. In reference to your argument aboout Genesis 1:31, specifically the point “since the Fall of man, not everything is considered ‘very good’ by God”, there was a reason God didn’t say “and it was perfect”. He created imperfections for a reason, so we could learn to be humble and learn to perfect ourselves in Him. Also, the Fall didn’t make anything in this world ‘not good’. It made us as humans susceptible to sin and thus gave us the ability to learn from the mistakes we make and repent for them, which ability was given to us by Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. Look around, how can you say that anything God made is ‘not good’? Not that EVERYTHING He made is perfect, although much of it is, His plan for us is perfect. Whatever is not good in this world is at fault of the imperfections of humans, not God. Everything, however, is made perfect in Him.


  12. umm everyone dies one day….


  13. I thought you might be interested in an article on Teilhard de Chardin (a Jesuit) and Transhumanism. The author shows of some Christian tradition might welcome transhumanism.

    http://jetpress.org/v20/steinhart.htm


  14. Thanks for the Info on Genetics here guys,
    It is very hard to find solid biblical info on these issues as many Christians them selves are becoming quite soft and of little stance on these grounded biblical truths to the extent where Christians are mixing evolutionary theories with the truth of creation in the Bible,
    Thanks Again


  15. As for the comment about it being wrong to extend life that long again: The world population has greatly increased since before the flood. Extend the lives of all those people and we are confronted with many new problems. Read an excerpt of Francis Fukuyama’s book “Our Posthuman Future”, called “The Prolongation of Life”. This is currently being proved by a new vaccine for Malaria. If it cured those affected in Africa, how would we feed the increased population when starvation is already a problem.

    Also, the overall debate here lies in contradicting values. No technology is separate from society(i.e. technological determinism is false). An adoption of new technology reflects social pushes. It can be agreed that Christian ethics contradict many social institutions. Therefore, it is logical that some aspects, though not all, of biotech- due to technologies intrinsic ties to society- would be in contradiction with Christian ethics as well.

    To this point my arguments have not included biblical reference because ultimately culture’s tendency toward secularism cannot be unbiased. Rather it rejects consideration of any Christian arguments.
    However, I would also like to point out that the bible calls Christians to “be not conformed of this world.”(Romans 12:2) This would imply that new technologies need to be questioned on a religious basis because society cannot determine what is best.


  16. wonderful document bravo


  17. […] The creative artist’s, and the public’s fascination with the destructive potential of biological science has existed for hundreds of years. The basis of Christianity punishes those who blaspheme. Perhaps this is subconsciously what the public fears when scientists begin to alter or ‘play’ with the genetic structure of plants and animals, essentially, playing the role of God.  […]


  18. I had a conversation with a friend,that in the latter days Men would be lovers of men Women with women and with animals.Can you tell me what chapter that is in?Thankyou.


  19. What verses might be applicable in a case study for the use of in vitro fertilization in a postmenopausal woman? It clearly goes against the laws of nature, but what does the Bible have to say?


  20. why bring religion into science or politics just cause someone tells you to jump off a bridge should you? i believe humans could be bettered by science yet religions and politics keep stopping improvements


  21. I bet you’re a north American or European, right?
    Anywhere else in the world, people view themselves as spiritual being with a body- in the western nations we tend to think we are bodies with spirits. This might seem trivial, but it’s actually very foundational to how we view ourselves, how we view eternity, and how we view things like heart transplants.
    The Bible does teach that the body is the temple, but reflect with me now, what was special about the temple? Only that it was the place God met with man- not the materials of the tent.
    By the way, God is a spirit and usually chooses to relate to us on the spiritual level. I think it’s safe to say God views us as spirits with bodies too.


  22. I’m shocked that the story of Noah was not referenced once in the article or in the comments.

    This is where we find a little more clear idea of God’s opinion of genetic modification & more specifically interspecies breeding. (Man with nephilim, man with animals, and nephilim and animals).

    Did you know it is now legal to experiment with the crossing of human with up to 50% “non-human”? They have to destroy it before it reaches maturity, but that is a step they are pushing to change.

    How about the merging of iron & clay in Dan 2:41-43? This passage is when Daniel saw a vision of the ages of men, and in the final age man merges iron and clay, but the iron doesn’t cleave to clay.

    Looking at the Noah situation a little closer…

    As Jesus said in Matthew 24:37, “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.”

    Well, what was it like in the days of Noah? The idea that God would destroy the earth to fulfill 1 Corinthians 3:17 just because we were partying a little too much just doesn’t sit well with the rest of the “sins” that God did not destroy the earth for.

    Genesis 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days–and also afterward–when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

    ….. Genetic manipulation!

    There was one other time God spoke of actually destroying people over sexual abomination, and was Sodom and Gomorrah.

    No, I’m not about to start bashing homosexuality, but rather point out just who the town of Sodom wanted to rape. They didn’t want to rape “men.” They wanted to rape “angels.” This is a very different distinction.

    They weren’t just going to rape, but they wanted to commit acts of inter-dimentional beastiality (1Corinthians 15:39) while the rest of the town cheered them on.

    Could the hostility be from men’s inclination towards revenge? They probably disliked the fact that nephilim were raping their women leaving them with monsters to birth (at the very least abducting & artificially knocking up the women with human/nephilim genetics spliced together)

    So nephilim were breeding with humans and animals creating a breed known as the raphaim.

    It was for this reason God destroyed the earth with a flood…. To wipe out the population of the Earth that had been genetically tampered with.

    It is the genetic alteration, or rather manipulation of DNA that is the abomination to God.

    As for the merging of iron and clay, this was in reference to the “final age of man.” Or the days of the coming of the son of man.

    Iron and clay. What could that mean? To me it seams pretty obvious that it is referring to man’s dream of becoming cyborgs wether for repair or enhancement.

    The Bible doesn’t necessarily say that merging the clay with iron is a “sin,” it merely says that it won’t work out so well.

    This brings me to the question of just HOW this cyborg reality my come into play. If the iron and clay don’t cleave, there might be required an altering of the DNA in order to get our bodies not to reject the machine we are trying to merge with.

    That leads us back to “as it was in the days of Noah.”

    I also want to point out that the “mark of the beast” comes into play here. It says that the number of man will “add up to” 666. It won’t be the number 666, but add up to it.

    Transhuman scientist are doing an awful lot of talk about changing our DNA from double strand to triple strand. One aim is long life, if not immortality. The other is to get our DNA to accept electronic technology.

    These are things you may want to consider before taking a pill, or undergoing a procedure to change your DNA for whatever reason.

    I mean, what if the specific DNA structure we have creates the only vibration that the great I Am can inhabit? What if changing that literally converts us to “beast” that God cannot dwell in?

    All of this brings me back to the Garden of Eden. They were trying to become like God, and live forever through knowledge (gnosis, wisdom, science, alchemy, etc.) instead of just trusting God’s end game.

    We are still trying to live forever by eating from the tree of knowledge. Wrong tree folks. The irony is we are believing the same lie… “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman (Genesis 3:4).

    Even Jesus made it clear that he did not come to bring Heaven on Earth. He did not come to unify man in this life, but rather tell us about His father’s house being prepared for us.

    Satan (Saturn) is the God of this world.

    He was very specific about this. Matthew 10:34 “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword.”

    And… Luke 12:49-51 “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.

    He showed us the way out… Dying.

    It’s like we are trying to make better caterpillars instead of preparing to become butterflies


  23. […] Bible verses on human enhancement https://hplusbiopolitics.wordpress.com/2008/07/13/bible-verses-on-human-enhancemen/ […]


  24. Really loved the quotations of the Bible.
    In fact Jesus, the Messiah, told that we will do more than He did in the past!


  25. Enjoyed looking at this, very good stuff, regards . “All things are difficult before they are easy.” by John Norley.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: