Journal Entry: Sex
Ricardo Gonzalez
ID: L31156909
September 11, 2021
Liberty University
Master of Arts in Medical Sciences
MSCI 640-B01
Introduction
After reflecting on this week's content, it is evident that there are many different
perspectives on the topics at hand. Being open-minded is one of the essential elements in
formulating one's own sound opinion. There is even much debate on the Church's
interpretation of the subjects at hand. At the center of this week's topics were sexuality, and
homosexuality, and human cloning. The beginning sections of Geisler on sexual issues talk about
the rise of the sexual revolution and how our society is sexually saturated (2010). I think an
important verse in the Bible regarding this sexual saturation is Matthew 5:28, But I say to you
that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with
her in his heart. On the precipice of this statement, it is easy to assume that it is challenging as
we are made as sexual beings, as depicted by Clark & Rakestraw (1994). The notion that
celibacy until marriage is outdated is incorrect. There are so many STDs and unwanted
pregnancies amongst teenagers at present, and more abortions are being done today than ever
before since it became legal (Geisler, 2008). The wayward acts of today's youth do not come
from a Biblical upbringing. If Christian ethics was to be followed, today's society could benefit
greatly. Geisler refers to two categories of sexual ethics, secular and Christan, and I think
outlining the different perspectives is vital in grasping the overall picture. There is Nihilism,
Emotivism, Existentialism, Situationism, Secular Humanism, Darwinism, and Zen Buddhism.
Nihilism, the most extreme, comes with the death of the moral lawbreaker, meaning everything
is permitted—the end of God as it is put in the text (Geisler, 2010). No divine imperatives
describe emotivism based on what an individual is feeling (Geisler,2010). Existentialism is
commonly referred to, as some people can be described as having an existential crisis. However,
this concept relates to atheism, suggesting that there is nothing to be objective about without
an objective moral lawmaker. Situationism, the outcome of each situation should be the
deciding factor. The ends justify the means. Situation ethics thereby deals with no absolutes.
Secular Humanism asserts that the universe is self-existing and was not created by God. The
nature of the universe is thereby depicted by modern science (Geisler, 2010). Darwinism,
descent through modification, the age-old theory of evolution. Physical fitness at its core. This
would lend a license for infanticide and promiscuity. Evolution does have a basis in science, but I
do not believe it fits when it comes to humans. I see no evidence of descent with modification
in humans. Some argue that evolution takes millions of years to occur. Scientists speculate that
modern humans are around two hundred thousand years old. If this is true, would we not even
see an inkling of phenotypes that are more adept at survival, reproduction? I am going with this
because the finches in the Galapagos Islands that survived the longest had the most extended
beaks. No human trait has stood the test of time; we still come in all phenotypic variants. That is
my defense against evolution. As it clearly states in Genesis 1:1, In the beginning, God created
the heavens and the earth. Sexual acts as it pertains to sexuality mean a lot of different things.
Both Sexes are made in the image of God, so when sexuality affects all aspects of life, certain
moral imperatives should be held too. The outlined above are all contemporary forms of
Hedonism that have given rise to the sexual revolution. Moreover, the Old and New Testaments
have set specific parameters about sexuality. Marriage is a sacred union that should be upheld;
Christians should maintain sexual abstinence before marriage, as it is illustrated that the Bible
considers sexual immorality a sin ( Geisler, 2010).
Homosexuality was the next topic that was presented. One of the case studies regarding a man
name Stan and a potential mate that was to ask him for a union was the center stage of Biblical
interpretation of homosexuality. Now I think when it comes to this topic, the context of the
writers and the time of the writing are significant factors. The Biblical writers at the time of
writing a lot of these scriptures were living in a world where sodomy was a form of punishment
to men. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
men who practice homosexuality. In my personal opinion, after reviewing a lot of scriptures
regarding the matter is that the mere not mentioning women's homosexuality leads me to
believe that the sodomy they are referring too, is the one linked to punishment. Jesus makes no
mention of gay marriage in any scripture. 1 Timothy, 1:10 The sexually immoral men who
practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound
doctrine.
Another example is that homosexuality is followed by those who have committed crimes,
enslaved, liars, and perjurers, following punishment. The sin of Sodom was not homosexuality
(Wagner, 2008). I believe that homosexuality should not be frowned upon, and in recent years,
many more Christians and the Church are more accepting of the idea. Clark & Rakestraw take
the argument a little further by outlining some theological stances towards homosexuality.
However, I agree with the others that of my own beliefs I believe that homosexuals, as long as
they show responsible genital expression in the eyes of God, should not be judged (Clark &
Rakestraw, 1994).
The next set of principles discussed is that of Wagner, the issue of human cloning. Is the
Church always at odds with science when it comes to cloning? Some of our classmates had very
intuitive counter-arguments about it not always clashing. I respectfully disagree with this issue
because we are made in God's image. Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew
you, and before you were born, I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."
The truth of being a Christian is that life begins at the moment of conception as the Lord
already knows you before you are you. This meaning that cloning would constitute an immoral
act. The creation of embryonic human clones is one step shy of modern-day eugenics. There are
other alternatives for research. Wagner suggests that cloning is unnecessary for promoting
regenerative medicine research. The most considerable contention here is that if cloning were
allowed, it would solve all the organ rejection problems from transplant patients. Although we
can get super close in the HLA match-up to have the slightest chance of rejection, it is still
possible. There are other ways to attack this issue without cloning. One of those alternatives is
using adult stem cells; this alternative does not require the destruction of human embryos,
manufactured or not. Genesis 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be
shed, for God made man in his own image. There should be no human cloning. It is immoral. As
a species, we should look to other alternatives that have great potential without the
unnecessary wasting of human life for the benefit of others. lex talionis? Although Bob Sullivan,
in his perspective, argued that the world's top religions are in utter disagreement when it
comes to the morality of cloning, ignoring the true religion vs. science on the topic. He claims
the
divide is too simplistic over the ethics of human cloning (Wagner, 2008). Which leads me to
question, what criteria are the unannounced religions looking at? Or are they overtly
abandoning taking a stance on the issue? Christians are opposed to human cloning, Jewish
beliefs allow therapeutic cloning, and other religions have varied opinions. The question is not
just a matter of religious debate but also a political one WHO affirmed that cloning for the
replication of human beings is ethically unacceptable (2004). The entire report is lengthy, but at
least thirty-five different countries have adopted forbidding human cloning.
Conclusion
This week's reading I enjoyed very much and brought me closer to God's as I continue to
study scripture on topics like sexuality, homosexuality, and life. As it begins, it helps me have an
open mind when discussing these issues with others. I feel when it comes to these religious
debates, it is effortless to scorn someone without reason. That being said, I can read an
opposing point of view without condemning the other person. At the end of this week, my
takeaway is to show grace as Jesus Christ would, as we are created in God's image.
References
Clark, D. K., & Rakestraw, R. V. (1994). Readings in Christian ethics. Baker Books.
Carroll, R. (2008). Bible-kjv. Oxford University Press, USA.
Geisler, N. L. (2010). Christian ethics: Contemporary issues & options. Baker Academic.
Wagner, V. (2008). Biomedical ethics. Greenhaven Press.
WHO, (2004). Executive board. UN General Assembly
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
