Wednesday, January 03, 2007

What did he say?

Sparkfly readers your opinion matters. Please weigh in on the following statement from a prominent Baptist leader. 1

"
To separate human sexuality from the family and procreation is a return to a pagan view of sex against which Biblical faith is a protest. The Princeton Professor of Christian Ethics, Paul Ramsey, insisted several years ago that the Biblical view of human sexuality always maintains that sexual relations must include the potential for the creation of new life. Not that sex is only for procreation! On the contrary, what is affirmed is the Biblical view that the joy of sex between a man and a woman is legitimate only within the bonds of marriage where a potential new born can be accepted."

When you read this statement, what are the non-negotiables you believe the writer is trying to convey? Do you agree or disagree with him?

The first sentence states that to separate human sexuality from the family and procreation would be a pagan practice. Human sexuality comprises much more than the physical act of intercourse. Sexuality is a needed and healthy part of everyday life that should be nurtured, not neutered until one is married with children.

It is possible that semantics are at fault. It would be helpful if the writer of the letter defined his view of sexuality. It would be good if I defined my view as well, but I'm not going to because I would rather read your opinions and allow the spinning in my head to stop.

S


1 For more information concerning the documentation of this statement please email Sparkfly editors.

1 Comments:

Anonymous sdj said...

I believe I read this whole statement yesterday, and there were a lot of things that I didn't quite know how to take.

I thought this part was interesting... "what is affirmed is the Biblical view that the joy of sex between a man and a woman is legitimate only within the bonds of marriage where a potential new born can be accepted." Does that mean that children whose parents aren't married can't or shouldn't be accepted? What about cases when the parents are married but don't want the child? (Happens more than you might think.)

The only non-negotiable I'm confident that Ramsey and anonymous Baptist leader are trying to convey is that "sexual relations" have to be between a man and a woman. I wonder if that is intentional or if they did it without realizing it.

I don't have all the questions related to this topic answered for myself. Right now, the only thing that I think is non-negotiable is that there are two willing parties engaging in the act... whatever constitutes a sexual act.

(Someone should write a book about this!)

1:28 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home