The Problem: According to the commandments of the major religions, God expects humans to have only a single lifelong romantic partner and to remain sexually faithful to them: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14). Yet, as any given week of tabloid headlines will tell you, humans aren't naturally wired for monogamy. Even after we're married or in a monogamous relationship, the sex drive continues functioning, often producing strong feelings of attraction and lust for people other than one's chosen partner. Even celebrities and politicians in high-profile relationships, people who have by far the most to lose from being caught cheating, seem unable to resist the urgings of adulterous desire.
For his answer, which adds to what
I previously suggested, read it
here.
9 comments:
Why would we need moral instruction against something that wasn't tempting at all?
And again, the sex drive is and ought to be powerful because it is deeply sacred and important bonding aspect of our lives that is part of the image of God.
That it is warped is something that is explained. We are broken. And of course, the more we particpate in our brokeness, sometimes we become even more warped we become.
This fella reasons that if God wanted us different, he should've created us differently. Well, it just so happens that God did create us differently. Humans fell.
There's also the screwy reasoning here that if God wanted us to be moral beings, then he wouldn't have given us free will ie, risk in the nature of our thought and potential behaviors. Well, then we wouldn't have been moral beings with respect to sexual morality to begin with.
"And again, the sex drive is and ought to be powerful because it is deeply sacred and important bonding aspect of our lives that is part of the image of God."
If that's the criteria for sacredness then eating must be really sacred and part of the image of god. The sex drive is no more mysterious than the hunger drive. If animals aren't lusfful they don't reproduce and they die out along with their dislike of sex. Animals that dislike food don't live long either.
Strange too that if sex is so sacred and part of the image of god that Paul and countless church fathers would say otherwise;
"Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband."
"I wish that all were as I am"
"those who marry will have affliction in regard to the flesh, and I would spare you that"
"he who marries his virgin does well, and he who does not marry her does better"
"in my opinion she [a widow] is happier if she remains as she is [and does not marry again]"
Then there's Jesus' own words;
"There are eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."
And if it is so much a part of our image of god thingie why would Jesus himself not marry?
Among the Apostles, only Saint Peter is known to have been married because his mother-in-law is mentioned in the Gospels. Some of the others might have been married but there is a clear indication that they left everything, including their families, to follow Christ. So much for sacred sex and marriage.
Scholar Reay Tannahill describes the early church fathers as linking sex and sin. She writes: "It was Augustine who epitomized a general feeling among the church fathers that the act of intercourse was fundamentally disgusting. . . . Arnobiur called it filthy and degrading, Methodius unseemly, Jerome, unclean, Tertullian shameful, Ambrose defilement.
No mention of 'sacred' anywhere. Their condemnation wasn't just aimed at fornication or adultery but toward the sex act itself.
There rest of your post is the same old appeal to 'freewill' as the ultimate value.
Yahweh is just pissed off because
asherah left him for Baal.
If that's the criteria for sacredness then eating must be really sacred and part of the image of god.
It doesn't have to be after all. It just makes sense.
The sex drive is no more mysterious than the hunger drive.
Yes, sexuality has been given completely naturalistic explanations. I didn't argue against that (though of course I disagree with it). The part of the article that I focused on was the criticism of a theological view of sexuality.
As for Paul, good grief, you really severed that one from the context. Of course paul says I wish... indicating that this is his opinion, noting that he reallly sees the benefit of being single... and there is, and then continueing on to describe singlehood or marriage as a gift.
Paul certainly recognizes the sacredness of sexuality noting drawing a parallel between marriage and the life of the trinity and envisioning the relationship of Christ to the church as a marriage. As for his preference for singleness, the benefits certainly are there in the context of a sinful world where redemption is to be our buisness and not having a wife and family means one can be more focussed on the mission of the church.
Still, right after the mot metaphysically important and explanatorally pregnant statement of scripture, that man is created in the image of God, it immeadiately states that the being of this creature is gendered, hence to be male and female is an essential aspect of being in the image of God.
I do not fully know why Jesus did not marry, not that I have to know for this view to be consistent. But it sure makes a lot of sense. Jesus' mission was to redeem the world and marriage requires a lifelong commitment on many levels to a specific individual over others. It makes even greater sense for paul to describe Jesus' relationship to the church as one of marriage given that all of his devotion is to all the believers.
While marriage is one of the most important ways to reflect the image of God, we still reflect it apart from that in other ways. But even being a gendered being reflects God.
Yes, the church fathers, including the very important Augustine made some very big theological mistakes.
There rest of your post is the same old appeal to 'freewill' as the ultimate value.
which is a perennially excellent response albeit needs to be delved into further than most have. And I do delve into it further than most, but it wasn't really on topic.
It really highlights what the guy was saying. the problem with sexual responsibility is that it is responsibility (a necessity in the context of morally relevant freedom).
Yes, sexuality has been given completely naturalistic explanations. I didn't argue against that (though of course I disagree with it).
You disagree that sexuality has a naturalistic explanation? How do you view the naturalistic explanation of disease? The bible is pretty clear that disease can be caused by demonic possession. How about the naturalistic explanation of weather? Is lightning natural or does god hurl thunderbolts? Are earthquakes the result of the movement of tectonic plates or god's wrath?
Once you assert supernaturalistic explanations all doors are open. Perhaps my recent losses in the stock market are really due to that mirror I broke a few years ago. Or maybe a witch put a hex on me.
As for Paul, good grief, you really severed that one from the context
Why is that such a favorite argument amongst christians? Context..."you took it out of context." Must I quote the entire bible when I wish to quote any bit of it? I know the context. I know that you know it. I wasn't attempting to mislead. Come to think of it, Muslims do the same thing when anyone quotes a bit of the quran they feel uncomfortable with.
Still, right after the most metaphysically important and explanatorally pregnant statement of scripture, that man is created in the image of God, it immeadiately states that the being of this creature is gendered, hence to be male and female is an essential aspect of being in the image of God.
So this means that all animals are made in the image of god?
But even being a gendered being reflects God.
If this is the criteria then every creature with genitalia are made in the image of god. Or does this only apply to human genitalia? If so, why?
which is a perennially excellent response albeit needs to be delved into further than most have. And I do delve into it further than most, but it wasn't really on topic.
You believe that you have delved into the problem of freewill further than most. That's quiet an assertion. Perhaps you could share your insights into freewill further with us. Let's delve since this reply seems to be a standard explanation. I'm always eager to learn more about freewill.
I never asked to be given freewill. It was forced upon me (in your view of reality). Can I give it back? "Look god, this freewill thing you've given me makes it possible...actually probable that I will reject you or choose to disbelieve or believe in the wrong god. Therefore it will likely lead me to eternal torture. I find the mere possibility of eternal hell much more abhorent than not having freewill, so could I please give it back to you? Am I free to refuse this gift of freewill that I didn't ask for? If I can't refuse it, it's not really a gift is it?"
Have you freely rejected Allah and his prophet? Have you knowingly turned your heart away from Ahura Mazda, Brahma and Baal? In just this way I have freely 'rejected' your god.
And yet the male-female ratio in almost every species is 1:1.
Rob R said,
"Still, right after the mot metaphysically important and explanatorally pregnant statement of scripture, that man is created in the image of God, it immeadiately states that the being of this creature is gendered, hence to be male and female is an essential aspect of being in the image of God."
God needs to get in touch with His (non-existent) feminine side, then, because there's NO mention of a caring, nurturing, motherly aspect of god anywhere in the Bible.
zenmite,
You may be onto something here:
"I find the mere possibility of eternal hell much more abhorent than not having freewill, so could I please give it back to you?"
Doesn't this idea remind you of a LOT of Christians that post here? The ones who have no brain of their own, and their only repetitive statement takes the form of
"GOD says...."
Zenmite,
You disagree that sexuality has a naturalistic explanation?
Naturalistic as in purely the product of natural processes with no guidance from an intentional being? OF COURSE I DENY THIS! I deny it with diseases as well which for humans is part of our collective curse for rebelling against god. That's a very far cry from suggesting that these don't have natural patterns with an autonomy from a constant specific will of God, such that we can study in terms of it's nature.
So this means that all animals are made in the image of god?
Different animals display portions of personhood that we see in the image of god to a lesser degree than we do. They do so in varying degrees with sexuality, with intelligence, emotions, social interaction etc. But only we have these to the quality and degree that we have the designation of bearers of the image of God.
Why is that such a favorite argument amongst christians? Context
because it is a favorite of critics to butcher and nullify the quality of their criticism. Why would you ask this? It's an essential aspect of interpretation and if your intepretation is wrong for this very reasonable reason, then there is no point in your criticism.
I know the context.
Clearly I disagreed and defended that.
Muslims do the same thing when anyone quotes a bit of the quran they feel uncomfortable with.
And either they are right or they aren't. It's a legitimate concern when you are interpreting ANYTHING, Koran, Bible, Presidential speaches, Nietzche. I can't believe you are complaining about this legitimate consideration.
Perhaps you could share your insights into freewill further with us. Let's delve since this reply seems to be a standard explanation. I'm always eager to learn more about freewill.
No, it's not the focus of the topic. I don't have to defend my whole world view just to explain why the criticism of this topic fails. That just isn't a practical way to discuss these things. It's just not practical to make criticism B, and then complain that when someone answers it, that related issues C, D, and E, aren't solved thus he never solved criticism B.
But I've treated the issue of free will in depth in two blog posts I made here and here
Geerhead, I've already cited the most important scripture implying that femininity reflects God (as well as masculinity). While it might be true that much of the presentation appears male, much of that may be brought to the text through your own unconsious male dominated interpretaion. Cannot women be wrathful, assertive, and jealouse? But scripture does use feminine imagery to speak of God such as with a mother hen or eagle. Divine wisdom is also personified as a woman in the proverbs.
Post a Comment