A Different World, Part I: Sex.
"Wishful thinking is one thing, and reality another."
~~James Galway~~
~~James Galway~~
I sometimes think people are afraid to think what things might have been like had God decided to do things differently than He has done them. I’m not saying people are afraid to say God was wrong about something, mind you. One need only read the philosophical musings of Betrand Russell or Aldous Huxley to show the exact opposite to be true. Infidels of a reprobate mind are constantly saying God was wrong to do this-or-that particular thing that does not strike their fancy. In the end, it always comes out that these types of people had selfish reasons for believing God wrong about something. For the moment, however, that is neither here nor there. But, what about a world where God chose to do things differently? On the surface, it seems almost blasphemous. It presumes that our idea of how things ought to be is better than God’s final judgment on the matter.
So, this was what was on my mind yesterday as I was feeling rather fleshly. Thankfully, my roommate, Josh, was willing to dialogue about the subject. To shorten a longer narrative, I found myself at odds with God’s design for sex within the bounds of marriage. But, seeing as how God has a quite the proven track record on pretty much everything, I am inclined to trust that He’s got things figured out on that end. Still, one can’t help but wonder, what if?
Most Christians understand the Biblical view of marriage as the avenue to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ and the viewpoint of sex within marriage as the superlative portrait of Jesus Christ’s relationship with His holy Church. And, of course, this is all logical as Christ has created it as we know it to be. The thing people are afraid to imagine, though, is that He could have just as very well created a world in which hedonism (which is certainly preferable to my flesh) was the way things ought to be. Sex, as we know it, could have been designed for something completely different. That kind of idea seems strange. It is not surprising people might have a difficult time wrapping their mind around what I am suggesting. “Why?” seems like a completely natural question to pose.
Philosophically, the inquiry is self-defeating. It presupposes that the act of sex must have the meaning it has, that any other possible meaning than the one we understand it to have is preposterous. It also presupposes that sex must have meaning at all. As I’ve thought about it, the question “Why?” is firmly entrenched in the world God has created, not the one He might have created. In regards to sex, we view it a certain way because God made it that way and if we question why it is so, we can always go back to everything I have already pointed out about its meaning. But, if God should have created things differently, we would have no reason to question it. Like Lewis’ argument against his former reasoning for atheism, “…just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should not know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” That is, unless we wanted to prescribe more meaning to the act than God has done Himself. (Which, ironically, would read in reverse of what I am now writing here.) If sex were created purely for pleasure (hedonism), rather than for purposes of producing children, we should have never thought differently. When discussing the matter, our view of sex would be just the same as it were now, only the reason for sex would be different.
This, unfortunately, led us into all manner of moral conundrums on both sides of the spectrum. Given that God has prescribed to sex the meaning we, as believers in Jesus Christ, know that it contains, what does that mean? Does it bring us closer to the Roman Catholic belief that contraception is a morally bankrupt practice? Does it suppose that people ought not marry until they are prepared to have children? On the opposite end, if God had created a world in which sex were nothing more than a pleasurable biological act, what would that mean? What would that make of the family structure? Would rearing children have a different meaning also? In this world, we consider sex for the sake of sex purely selfish. If God were to create a world in which sex were just sex, would it still be considered selfish…sinful?
Some would opt for calling it sin, even if God did not. But, this is nonsense. Good and bad, right and wrong do not exist independent of God’s fiat. God, by His holy decision, determines which is which. So, even if I desire to have sex outside of marriage, it is wrong as He has determined sex is for married couples only. If He had determined otherwise, it would not be. It might even be argued, that if I attributed more meaning to it than God had, that would be considered wrong.
Ultimately, this is much like Bruce Almighty roping in the moon to impress his girlfriend whilst causing a tsunami that kills millions in Asia. It is the logic (or hollow and deceptive philosophy) of a fallible human being imagining things that be not as though they were. Being from the world God has created, I understand my desire for meaningless things is fleshly, which I continue to bring under subjection each day. My decision to make things different, were I God, will never happen as the position is taken. I can also look to the times in my life where I have endeavored to play His role anyways and my efforts have fallen to dust. All I mean to do here is what every author does, fiction or nonfiction…imagine a world where things are different than we know them to be—worlds where crazy things like time travel is actualized, aliens abduct people on a routine basis, and superheroes fly the air and blast the villains with their superpowers. God is God and I am not. I am not attempting here to call into question His wisdom. Even His foolishness is wiser than man! Each of us must live, knowing that the decision He has made is the best of all possible choices, even if it doesn’t strike our fancy.
* If some deem my thoughts inordinate or perverse, I apologize. I don’t find my desires ungodly, should they one day find themselves within the confines of a marriage to the woman of my dreams. I am aware of the reality in which God has created and I try to live my life as closely as possible as Scripture lays out. If I have erred in my thinking, God will deal with me. Yahweh’s peace.
So, this was what was on my mind yesterday as I was feeling rather fleshly. Thankfully, my roommate, Josh, was willing to dialogue about the subject. To shorten a longer narrative, I found myself at odds with God’s design for sex within the bounds of marriage. But, seeing as how God has a quite the proven track record on pretty much everything, I am inclined to trust that He’s got things figured out on that end. Still, one can’t help but wonder, what if?
Most Christians understand the Biblical view of marriage as the avenue to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ and the viewpoint of sex within marriage as the superlative portrait of Jesus Christ’s relationship with His holy Church. And, of course, this is all logical as Christ has created it as we know it to be. The thing people are afraid to imagine, though, is that He could have just as very well created a world in which hedonism (which is certainly preferable to my flesh) was the way things ought to be. Sex, as we know it, could have been designed for something completely different. That kind of idea seems strange. It is not surprising people might have a difficult time wrapping their mind around what I am suggesting. “Why?” seems like a completely natural question to pose.
Philosophically, the inquiry is self-defeating. It presupposes that the act of sex must have the meaning it has, that any other possible meaning than the one we understand it to have is preposterous. It also presupposes that sex must have meaning at all. As I’ve thought about it, the question “Why?” is firmly entrenched in the world God has created, not the one He might have created. In regards to sex, we view it a certain way because God made it that way and if we question why it is so, we can always go back to everything I have already pointed out about its meaning. But, if God should have created things differently, we would have no reason to question it. Like Lewis’ argument against his former reasoning for atheism, “…just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should not know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” That is, unless we wanted to prescribe more meaning to the act than God has done Himself. (Which, ironically, would read in reverse of what I am now writing here.) If sex were created purely for pleasure (hedonism), rather than for purposes of producing children, we should have never thought differently. When discussing the matter, our view of sex would be just the same as it were now, only the reason for sex would be different.
This, unfortunately, led us into all manner of moral conundrums on both sides of the spectrum. Given that God has prescribed to sex the meaning we, as believers in Jesus Christ, know that it contains, what does that mean? Does it bring us closer to the Roman Catholic belief that contraception is a morally bankrupt practice? Does it suppose that people ought not marry until they are prepared to have children? On the opposite end, if God had created a world in which sex were nothing more than a pleasurable biological act, what would that mean? What would that make of the family structure? Would rearing children have a different meaning also? In this world, we consider sex for the sake of sex purely selfish. If God were to create a world in which sex were just sex, would it still be considered selfish…sinful?
Some would opt for calling it sin, even if God did not. But, this is nonsense. Good and bad, right and wrong do not exist independent of God’s fiat. God, by His holy decision, determines which is which. So, even if I desire to have sex outside of marriage, it is wrong as He has determined sex is for married couples only. If He had determined otherwise, it would not be. It might even be argued, that if I attributed more meaning to it than God had, that would be considered wrong.
Ultimately, this is much like Bruce Almighty roping in the moon to impress his girlfriend whilst causing a tsunami that kills millions in Asia. It is the logic (or hollow and deceptive philosophy) of a fallible human being imagining things that be not as though they were. Being from the world God has created, I understand my desire for meaningless things is fleshly, which I continue to bring under subjection each day. My decision to make things different, were I God, will never happen as the position is taken. I can also look to the times in my life where I have endeavored to play His role anyways and my efforts have fallen to dust. All I mean to do here is what every author does, fiction or nonfiction…imagine a world where things are different than we know them to be—worlds where crazy things like time travel is actualized, aliens abduct people on a routine basis, and superheroes fly the air and blast the villains with their superpowers. God is God and I am not. I am not attempting here to call into question His wisdom. Even His foolishness is wiser than man! Each of us must live, knowing that the decision He has made is the best of all possible choices, even if it doesn’t strike our fancy.
* If some deem my thoughts inordinate or perverse, I apologize. I don’t find my desires ungodly, should they one day find themselves within the confines of a marriage to the woman of my dreams. I am aware of the reality in which God has created and I try to live my life as closely as possible as Scripture lays out. If I have erred in my thinking, God will deal with me. Yahweh’s peace.
posted by C. E'Jon Moore @ 1.8.05
6 Comments:
If God made sex purely for pleasure, than I doubt it would feel the same. I would imagine it would be void of orgasm, it would be like a really good backrub. God made sex obviously for pleasure, and obviously for multiplication. But those two tie in together. God made it pleasurable so we would do it, and therefore, create more people. If it did not create more people, I doubt God would have provided as much incentive to participate. Just my .02
DK
What DK said. I think this is a great article. It has put into words the same conclusion I have come to regarding my struggle in that area.
It's interesting because, yet again, my philosophy differs 180 degrees from yours. I only have time to touch on it quickly, but like everything else on this planet - the sacred and the profane are in the using and the mental-spiritual approach. The heart of the observer, in my opinion, determines whether something is dirty or pure.
That said, sex is for pleasure. Sex is for procreation, sure, but culturally-functionally, it's become more about pleasure. Further, it is written (I'm paraphrasing here) "anything that is done in love is My ritual and honors Me." Sex can be a loving and appropriate way to honor the God and Goddess and their efforts to continue the natural cycles of life. But we OBVIOUSLY diverge on this point.
I look to the natural world around me, personally the holiest "book" I could ever think to turn to, and see sex outside of marriage everywhere. It's humanity that is the abnormality in needing a cultural-moral set of conventions to show us how not to abuse or misuse sex. Strange.
It is an unusual world where human animals must constantly establish their differential components, their seperateness, and ultimately their supposed superiority over the world around us... but I diverge.
From a strickly bio-cultural point-of-view, monogamy is inversely proportionate to the size of the males of a species testicles. Based on the animal kingdom, human males are fairly polygamous by design. But that's an entire different ball of wax, though it does explain why if (1) sex is bad from a moral point of view, we (2) need clear rules and guide lines to dealing with sex. Hence, religious guidelines.
I was talking to my wife about this very sex-out-of-marriage point yesterday and personally realized that I see the prohibition against sex outside of marriage as being for really two reasons: (1) men want to know who their inheritors really are and (2) it's easier to say "wait for marriage" then to get into the nitty-gritty of explaining the potential negative side effects... unfortunately for us curious humans, telling us there's a door we shouldn't open is basically an invitation to do just that. Perhaps taking the time to explain the intricacies to the next generation will make us more responsible humans in the long run... this of course assumes that God's prohibition against sex is negotiable (which I think is, considering it was written down by a human - but that brings up the entire question of the divine quality of the Bible - you can guess where I stand).
~E
E~~
Obviously, you and I have very divergent views, as you have already said. However, you have raised some interesting questions and made some interesting observations that require more than a simple glossing over. You and I will get into those things on a one-on-one basis.
At this point in our relationship, I come from the POV the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God. You, on the other hand, do not. This will make for a somewhat stilted dialogue on this matter.
The Bible gives a very clear COMMAND for sex in the Bible is for the propagation of the species. Sex, in its design, was also created with strong spiritual components and symbolism. While this may not be a Biblical view, I also believe sex might be pleasurable 1.) As a "reward" for following the command "be fruitful and multiply" and 2.) To keep people WANTING to be "fruitful and multiply" even though childbirth is painful and child-rearing is the most difficult undertaking a man and woman can take on. Being that Christians believe God has given a specific command as to the purpose and design, we must logically conclude this supersedes a "strictly bio-cultural point-of-view."
While many Christians may treat it as such (hence my endnote), sex, in and of itself, is not morally wrong. The religious guidelines regarding sex (or any other matter), you assume, were [arbitrarily] created by mankind. C.S. Lewis (my favorite author) makes the statement, "...as if "religion" were something God invented, and not His statement to us of certain quite unalterable facts about His own nature." The fact of the matter is, the Bible teaches Christians that we have literally been bent by sin…an area you and I currently differ on. Such being the case, our view and use for sex has been bent away from the purpose for which God created it…or certain purposes have been left by the wayside in a selfish grab for more of another purpose (i.e. the decision to forego having children for a period of time in order to have as much sex as possible or to opt out of having children altogether). Obviously, Christians believe sex is reserved for marriage. The statistics bear out that this should be the case. So, you and I agree on your final point, but for differing reasons. We should educate our children as to why one way is good and another is not…because God has designed sex for a certain purpose. Anything outside the confines of that purpose goes against “His unalterable nature” and will inevitably lead to some form of ruin.
I hope to get into this subject a bit more with you down the road. This seems like we are starting in the middle with a lack of established common ground. I believe you and I ought to start our dialogue in a at the only place we can…the beginning. Yahweh’s peace, bro.
Yes God commands us to be fruitful and multiply but He most definitely created sex between a married couple to be pleasurable. Have you not read the Song of Solomon?? It borders on being x-rated in the detail to which it describes the pleasure they take from one another. All the senses are emjoyed as the lovers talk about their sexual experience - sight (4:1-7; 5:10-16), hearing (2:10, 2:14), smell (1:3, 7:8), taste (4:11, 5:1) and touch (6:2-3, 8:3).
Your argument in the article is faulty from the beginning because it is based on God creating sex only for procreation. Yes it is only for married couples (Hebrews 13:4). But the sexual relationship is also ordained by God (Genesis 1:27), is for procreation (Genesis 1:28), is for pleasure (Proverbs 5:18-19), is for expressing and building unity (Genesis 2:24-25), is regulated by guidelines within the marriage (1 Corinthians 7:1-5).
As for your friend's argument that we humans feel the need to confine sex in a way that nature does not, he should be reminded that there are numerous animals that are monogomous and only have one sex partner for life. Sex was created by God, we are created by God and we are designed in such a way that we need physical intimacy with another human being. Sex within the confines of marriage is for our good, as are all the "restrictions" (for lack of a better word) that God has placed for us.
If sex is also just for procreation, then you must have an answer for infertile couples. If they are unable to reproduce but the Bible clearly states to have sex and not withhold it from one another as a married couple (again 1 Corinthians 7:1-5) then what is the answer for them? It creates a major contradiction.
I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on this. Drop me an email!
I don't know if I'm just not paying attention or what, but what I got out of your post was something not really related to sex at all. I mean, I see your struggle, but I have no comment (oddly enough) because you got me thinking about something else.
So it seems like you're talking about the tricky little reality that Christians always run into everytime we sit back and realize that God is God and we are not. Anything we could try to figure out that God does isn't going to make much sense (and probably drive us around in circles--which I noticed you did in this post) because all we can do is think about it with the understanding of humans. It's like the shadow trying to understand the statue. It can't.
And what's so lovely about that is that the second the shadow does, indeed, understand the statue, it has to become the statue. God can't be God if we understand him. (That thrills me.)
that's all.
oh wait, I enjoy your writing. I'll visit more often.
Post a Comment
<< Home