REMEMBER TO COPY THIS AND PASTE IT. DON’T SUBMIT A DOCUMENT.
1 Thessalonians 5:23 (Amplified Version) states, “Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you through and
through [that is, separate you from profane and vulgar things, make you pure and whole and undamaged-consecrated
to him-set apart for his purpose]; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept complete and [be found] blameless
at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This week’s topic challenged me to think critically about sex, genetic
engineering, birth control, and vaccinations. I have posted my DB posts on this document I thought gave a proper
summary on my views. Additionally, will comment on each topic.
Sex
Sexuality
Pornography:
I would explain to Hannah the social, psychological, and spiritual ramifications associated with pornography use
explained by Geisler (2010a). Although there are too many ramifications to mention in a small post, it’s important to
note that pornography affects the neuropsychology of the human brain, so much so, that pornography creates a drug
like addiction. Additionally, pornography has been linked to violent crimes such as sexual assault, rape, and incest
and has been linked to dysfunctional families. The Biblical case against pornography implies is sinful in nature, does
not honor marriage, and cultivates lust and adultery is one’s heart. A believer is to be sober or sober mind according
to 1 Peter 1:13 (New International Version). Similarly, 1 Peter 5:8-9 (New King James Version) says, “Be sober, be
vigilant; Because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Resist him,
steadfast in the faith.” Finally, seeking satisfaction from viewing pornographic images is the sin of lust. Jesus taught
that lust leads to adultery in Matthew 5:27-30 (New King James Version): you have heard that it was said to those of
old you shall not commit adultery. But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lusts after her has already
committed adultery with her in his heart.
All in all, I would advise Hannah to not cooperate in her husband’s wants. She would be falling into continual sin if
she continues to watch pornography with her husband. I would suggest to Hannah and Charles that they should
attend Christian marriage counseling as a couple and as individuals. Pornography is a sin that needs to be recognized
and confessed. Both Charles and Hannah should separate themselves from the sources of temptation as mentioned in
Matthew 5:29-30 (New International Version). However, Hannah and Charles should not expect for change to
happen overnight, it is a continual process. Therefore, Hannah and Charles should be steadfast into the Word of the
Lord and find accountability partners, other than themselves.
Heavy petting:
For this post, I agreed with Emma’s response: marriage is a covenant between man and woman and was the first
human institution before the fall of man in Genesis 3. Additionally, Jesus upholds the Old Testament definition of
marriage. In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus declares, "...have you never read that He who created them from the beginning
created male and female and said, 'for this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined
inseparably to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?'" According to Clark and Rakestraw (1996), Christians
should hold, “marriage as the only appropriate channel for genital-sexual expression with another person.” This
includes petting. Sex is a gift from our Creator; as such, the writers of the Scriptures endorse the celebration of
human sexuality. However, one should find “sexual enjoyment within the limits established by God” according to
Clark and Rakestraw (1996b). Waiting until marriage guarantees no painful and embarrassing realizations, as you've
stated, from premarital sex. (Clark & Rakestraw, 1996b)
Commentary:
I particularly enjoyed reading on the Biblical ethic of sex. I feel that many Christians, including myself, want to
dive deep into learning about what the Bible says about sex. I first thought, when I was a teen, that sex was so bad
that it could only be done in marriage. After reading some books and watching Christian sermons, I realized that
God’s intention for sex was to be that it should be left for marriage. I particularly enjoyed reading theso good
correlation between improper sexuality and the Trinity. It’s important for Christian to understand how their carnal
actions affect their spirituality and relationship with the Father, Christ, and Holy Spirit.
Premarital sex and abstinence are heavily described in both the Old and New Testament. Additionally, both the
Old and New Testament restrict sex to marriage (Leviticus 18; Ephesian 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3;
Hebrews 13:4). Amanda and Emma made good observations on their reply to both case studies. They mentioned
the potential embarrassment and shame that would arise with fornication after a relationship ends. This is
particularly true in the “heavy petting” case study that was mentioned. Although the intentions of the couple
unharmful to them, there are potential psychological, physical, and spiritual repercussions for their actions.
The Geisler (2010a) explanation on pornography was amazing. I loved that Geisler explained a social and biblical
case against pornography. It’s important for Christian to use Biblical and secular statistics when conversing on
sensitive topics such as pornography. Additionally, Geisler’s take on “solving” pornography is great and can be used
for other sins as well: we must all recognize our sinful actions as sin, confess the actions as sins, separate ourselves
from the source(s) of temptation, pray regularly for God’s help, replace bad sources with good ones, and find a
accountability partner.
Homosexuality
Commentary:
This topic wasn’t one I liked conversing about; it makes me squeamish. This topic is hot right now in the world
and Christians are always under fire for their beliefs. I do think that this week’s readings gave a new perspective on
sin and love for others.
In regard to the case studies: there was a general consensus on the lesbian schoolteacher, but responses varied for
the marriage proposal Lesbian schoolteacher:. I personally think that if Sarah’s lifestyle is not impeding her ability,
to teach, it should be left alone. Brenda shouldn’t share Sarah’s privacy with other faculty without Sarah’s consent.
Although Brenda may feel entitled because h seis the principal of the soon and a Christian, she would have to
expose every one of her faculty and her sin as well. Nowhere in the Bible does God/Christ proclaim a scale of sin.
On the contrary, " we ALL sin and for short of the glory of God," according to (Romans 3:23, New International
Version). I agree with the other responses for this post: if Brenda wants to share the Truth from the Word, she needs
to be Sarah's friend first. In no way is exposing someone's sin to them, as an "introduction" to Christianity, going to
bring them closer to God. Jesus didn't stand in a street corner holding a board stating, "you are going to hell" and
leave. He , and with sinners and then proclaimed the Truth (Matthew 9:10-17). Additionally, sat, ate conversed
Brenda should do as stated in Ephesians 4:15 (Amplified Version), "but, speaking truth in love [in all things-both our
speech and our lives-expressing His Truth, let us grow up in all into Him [following His example] who is the things
Head—Christ." Marriage proposal: If I were Stan's close friend/pastor I would immediately give him a hug and
console him. It is very brave to talk about these sensitive topics with anyone. We all struggle with sin! Some are
internal (lying, cheating, coveting) but others are external (fornication, adultery, homosexuality, murder). It is much
easier to cover-up an internal sin than an external one, so internal sin are not really talked about. Nonetheless, all sin
pulls us farther away from God (Romans 3:23). As we can see in the case study, Stan knows what the Bible states on
homosexuality. God's grace assures his children that they will not be tempted above what they can handle (1
Corinthians 10:13). As Dr. Waldron stated, Stan may be called by God to be celibate. However, God has the power
of restoration. Stan should pursue a stronger and more intimate relationship with God and should remove himself
from the root of temptation. Additionally, Stan should attend counseling or a group that will further his
relationship with God.
Sex Studies
Commentary:
There were two DB posts on government-funded sex studies. On both I stated that, sex studies should be partially
funded by the government. When I initially think of sex studies, two images pop into my mind: the good and the…
weird. The good: sex education and statistics on sensitive topics such as rape/incest, assault, STD/Is, and
psychological trauma. The weird: practically everything else. I don’t think the government should pay for the
“Weird” aspect of sex studies; those topics can be privately funded by outside sources. It is, however, significant to
provide sex information for the whole population, whether they’re Christian and follow God’s ordinances-as Brian
stated in his post-or not. Also, sex education is needed and should be taught, preferably, by parents and the church
(discussed in detail in the vaccination section).
I well understand that I am ignorant on the topic and need to research more on what exactly constitutes
“government-funded sex studies.” Psalm 119:66 (English Standard Version) proclaims, "teach me knowledge and
good judgment, for I trust your commands." Since the Bible doesn't specifically talk about government-funded sex
studies, it is difficult to know the exact answer based on God's ordinances for that exact topic. I think Psalm 119:66
is what we should ask God when we are confronted with questions like these. His knowledge and his judgment are
always good for us.
Genetic Engineering
Currently, there is not religious consensus regarding genetic cloning. According to Sullivan (2008), “people’s
support for or opposition to cloning is not based on religious beliefs.” Conservative Christian categorically oppose
all cloning, Jewish beliefs permit therapeutic human cloning, Buddhist tradition has no states position, and Hindu
and Muslim scholars variously voice strong objections and cautious approval for cloning. Additionally, Courtney
Campbell (2008) writes that Native Americans view animal cloning and human cloning, “both risk substantial
disruption of the created order and balance in nature.” Similarly, African American churches are not only affirming
life begins at conception, but are “sensitive to the potential abuses minorities may face in the name of medical
research because of incidents like the Tuskegee experiments…” All in all, Campbell states, “science can be a spur to
creative and innovative theological thought” and there is a “crying need” for the church to be a “forum for
discussion with engaged dialogue between science and religion.”
Genetic engineering is an attempt to master nature; an attempt that undermines our appreciation of human
achievement and our sense of life as a gift (Sandel, 2008). Sandel made this assertion to iterate the importance of
appreciating the gifted quality for life, a life opposed of the arrogant belief that humans can control or are above
nature. Sandel further gives the example of athletes and the problem that would arise if athletes were genetically
altered: the corruption of athletic competition as a “human activity that honors the cultivation and display of natural
talents [and effort].” Additionally, Sandel implores the lack of appreciation for children in accepting them as they
come in the hubris of the designing parents and their “drive to master the mystery of birth.” Finally, in Sandel’s
opinion, eugenics is morally objectionable whether state-coerced, as practiced by the Nazis, or freely chosen, as
practiced by buyers of eggs and sperm when they select the genetic traits they desire.
I do think the human race can benefit from genetic engineering without the expense of destroying embryos. As
mentioned last week, there are many alternatives to embryonic stem cell research such as extraction of cells from
dead embryos, nonharmful biopsy of live embryos, using cells from artificially created cell systems, reprogramming
adult somatic cells, and chemically triggering an unfertilized egg to begin dividing and organizing. These
alternatives should be implemented to resolve the confounding ethical issues mentioned. Furthermore, I think gene
therapy should be done as a treatment for hereditary defects post-birth by using alternative methods I’ve described
above, if and only if other treatments are unsatisfactory. I do not think cloning technology should be utilized to
correct hereditary defects in the embryo stage by means of breaking down “embryos into cells, correct[ing] any
serious, genetic defects in these cells, and then clon[ing] healthy cells to create a new embryo that can be implanted
[in a uterus] to start a pregnancy” (Wilmut & Highfield, 2008).
I think the biggest danger with genetic engineering is the idea of “playing God.” If everyone is a reflection of
God’s image and were especially “knitted in their mother’s womb” (Psalm 139:3, New International Version) then
who should try to manipulate His masterpiece? On the other hand, we (humans) live in a begotten world and
sickness is a consequence of the fall of man depicted in Genesis 3. Although I do think God has created medical
professionals and scientists to help combat sickness, I think the manipulation of an embryo is not the way. There are
other treatments available and early treatment demonstrates the best prognosis.
Commentary:
Selection of offspring traits
Last week, I mentioned that of all the reproductive technologies available, artificial insemination via donor (AID)
was not my favorite because of its impact within a marriage. However, if the context of a marriage is removed,
should AID still be an option for a single Christian woman who wants kids? I do not know the answer to that
question, but I think Sandel (2008) makes a greater counteract against eugenics. Sandel deplores eugenics as
wrestling with enhancement;” the Nazis did it and James Watson believed in it, who even stated, “women should be
free to abort fetuses for any reason of genetic preference.” Additionally, Sandel mentions a market right now for egg
and sperm allowing prospective parents to shop for gametes with the genetic traits they desire in their genetic
offspring. Do I think looks matter? Of course, but they are not everything.
I still think adoption is the best option!
Human Cloning
“Clones will never be copies,” declare Wilmut and Highfield (2008). The researchers further implore that genetic
identity is not the same as personal identity and mention how identical twins, with the same genetic makeup, are
different individuals. Although, I completely believe this, I do think both reproductive and therapeutic cloning are
unethical. As I’ve mentioned above, there are alternatives for embryonic research. However, I agree with Kass
(2008) that cloning research [on embryos] is ethically problematic and is dehumanizing the world into using nascent
human life as a mere natural resource. Further Kass explains that cloning is not essential for basic research and that
patenting and selling embryos could follow because of the research’s inadequate regulation.
Birth Control
Commentary:
According to Hall (2016), it has long been known that administration of either estrogen or progesterone, if given
in appropriate quantities during the first half of the monthly cycle, can inhibit ovulation. The reason for this is that
appropriate administration of either of these hormones can prevent the preovulatory surge of LH secretion by the
pituitary gland, which is essential in causing ovulation. The challenge in devising methods for the hormonal
suppression of ovulation has been in developing appropriate combinations of estrogens and progestins that suppress
ovulation but do not cause other, unwanted effects. For instance, too much of either hormone can cause abnormal
menstrual bleeding patterns. However, use of certain synthetic progestins in place of progesterone, especially the 19-
norsteroids, along with small amounts of estrogens, usually prevents ovulation yet allows an almost normal pattern
of menstruation. Therefore, almost all “pills” used for the control of fertility consist of some combination of
synthetic estrogens and synthetic progestins.
Moreover, Geisler (2010b) states there are many situations in which birth control is right. This includes to delay
one’s family or limit one’s family to fit the parents’ ability to provide for them, to space out children, to end’s one’s
family, for medical reasons of the mother, and celibacy. Furthermore, the “pill” can be used for women with
endometriosis or strong/uncomfortable menstrual cycles to mask their symptoms. Also, condoms are 98% effective
at protecting against most Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs).
I do not agree with one of Geisler statements on birth control. He states, “it would be wrong if one were using it
outside of marriage for illicit sexual activity. Contraceptives are not to be used to avoid the consequences of one's
sexual sins.” Although, I do agree with that statement for Christians, I don’t think contraceptives should be removed
altogether, and it would be ignorant to think that without contraception, sex would be limited to marriage.
Moreover, I believe that God’s timing for children is always perfect. So, birth control cannot control God. I think
birth control is a means for us, humans, to feel like we are controlling our reproductive situations. Of course, birth
control is important in this world because not everyone follows the ordinances that God proclaims. However, should
Christian married couples continue using birth control (assuming no other confounding variables like STIs or other
disorders) if God is the only one that can create life whenever He sees fit? Even then, God can do a miracle and
remove an STD/I and allow parents to have “clean” children.
James 4:7a (English Standard Version) states, “submit, yourselves, then, to God.” I’m not saying birth control
isn’t important or a necessity for many people, because it is! However, we should always be keen to God’s will for
our lives. His ways and thoughts are higher than our ways and thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9, New International Version).
HPV vaccinations
Commentary:
When the HHPV vaccine first came out, my mother did not want me to get it. Granted, I was a minor, and I knew
very little about vaccines. I had always been vaccinated previously and I clearly remember the shots. In her opinion,
she knew I wasn't going to be "fooling around" and didn't think the vaccine was a necessity. My mother relented and
I was given the vaccine because she didn't know if the man I'd be married would've had a "questionable" past and
wanted to keep me safe, nonetheless. As an adult that studied in biology, I agree with vaccines, but it is ultimately up
to parents on whether they would have their children vaccinated (up to the age of 18). As Dr. Waldron stated, there
isn't much one can do except respect the wishes of the parents and remind them of the potential side effects on their
child and other children.
In primary/secondary schools, I think vaccines should be required, but there may be exclusions based on certain
circumstances that parents would need to address. Education shouldn't be restricted to children that have no say on
their vaccination status. College, on the other hand, is a different story. My undergraduate university had 50,000
students at the time I was a student. It was required for students to be vaccinated. I do not remember if HPV was a
required vaccination, though. In this case, vaccinations should be required because of the large number of students
present. Noah (Genesis 6-9) built an ark and he had never seen rain, but he was prepared. In the same way, we need
to be prepared in this fallen world and this includes vaccinations.
In response Tyler’s post I stated that BOTH parents (and the church) should have a conversation with always
their children (and youth) about STDs and sex. It is a huge misconception that sex is “too dirty” and should be never
talked about in church. Although marriage was the first institution created by God, procreation was God’s first
command to Adam and Eve! Additionally, statements like “don’t do it until your married,” aren’t appropriate
because many people that attend church are NOT going to wait until they’re married to have sex. So, conversation
on sex education, including abstinence and safe sex, need to be spoken about! I’m currently waiting until marriage
to have sex with my future husband. When I was younger, I knew it was important for me to wait because I made a
commitment with God; however, I really didn’t know/have a Biblical rulebook. It wasn’t my late teens that I was
interested in learning about sex and the Bible and as one of my church’s youth administrators, I [with other leaders
and the youth pastors) am adamant on teaching our youth on masturbation, pornography, sex, abortion, etc.
References:
Campbell, C. (2008). African American and Native American religious views on cloning. In V. Wagner (Ed.),
Opposing viewpoints: Biomedical ethics (p. 109). GreenHaven Press.
Clark, D., & Rakestraw, R. (Eds.). (1996a). Homosexuality. In Reading in christian ethics, vol 2: Issues and
applications (8th ed., pp. 177–219). Baker Books.
Clark, D., & Rakestraw, R. (1996b). Sexuality, marriage, and singleness. In D. Clark & R. Rakestraw (Eds.),
Reading in christian ethics, vol 2: Issues and applications (8th ed., pp. 139–173). Baker Books.
Geisler, N. (2010a). Appendix 3: Pornography. In (2nd ed., pp. Christian ethics: Contemporary issues & options
381–395). Baker Academic.
Geisler, N. (2010b). Birth Control. In Christian ethics: Contemporary issues & options (2nd ed., pp. 396–405).
Baker Academic.
Geisler, N. (2010c). Homosexuality. In (2nd ed., pp. 280–298). Christian ethics: Contemporary issues & options
Baker Academic.
Geisler, N. (2010d). Sexual Issues. In (2nd ed., pp. 260–279). Christian ethics: Contemporary issues & options
Baker Academic.
Hall, J. (2016). Female physiology before pregnancy and female hormones. In Guyton and Hall: Textbook of
medical physiology (13th ed., p. 1053). Elsevier, Inc.
Kass, L. (2008). Human cloning is unethical. In V. Wagner (Ed.), (pp. 89–Opposing viewpoints: Biomedical ethics
96). GreenHaven Press.
Sandel, M. (2008). The selection of offspring traits is unethical. In V. Wagner (Ed.), Opposing viewpoints:
Biomedical ethics (pp. 114–123). GreenHaven Press.
Sullivan, B. (2008). There is no religious consensus on the ethics of human cloning. In V. Wagner (Ed.), Opposing
viewpoints: Biomedical ethics (pp. 105–113). GreenHaven Press.
Wilmut, I., & Highfield, R. (2008). Therapeutic human cloning is ethical. In V. Wagner (Ed.), Opposing viewpoints:
Biomedical ethics (pp. 97–104). GreenHaven Press.
