PDA

View Full Version : OUR FEATURED MEMBER ARTICLE: A Theology of Sex by ApologiaNick



Trout
January 9th 2006, 12:42 AM
A Theology of Sex


Perhaps one of the great developments of modern theology, and a witness to our age, which needs it so desperately, will be a glorious new theology of sex. (Kreeft TGWLY 153)

I was rather pleased when I read that sentence in Kreeft’s book. Kreeft has been a philosopher that has put the finishing touches on something I had pondered for so long. As a Christian, I do not believe God created characteristics of this world on accident, and that includes sexuality. Being a young man thinking about sex, I kept pondering why God did things the way he did and if he’s revealing something of his nature, especially since Scripture is replete of terminology of a marriage relationship such as the bride of Christ and Hosea and Ezekiel 16 and the entire Song of Solomon.

Thus, I am here to present a theology of sex. I will be looking at what I see in the Scriptures and in general revelation. If God is revealing himself in both places, it behooves us to understand what message he is given us. In modern American culture, one would have to be blind to deny that sex is the national obsession. Perchance a good theology of sex will help us realize the beauty that God intended sex to be and the shameful way the world treats it.

Already, some who know me may be raising an objection. “Nick! You’re a virgin! What can you tell us about sex?!” At first, this seems to have weight, except that I also parallel sex with Heaven, something else I have not experienced, but I believe through Scriptural revelation and through the desires placed in our heart, such as C.S. Lewis has done in such works as “Surprised By Joy,” we can get clues as to the nature of Heaven. By looking at desire and what little I do know, I could give an alternative view that more parallels mystery and wonder.

To begin with, I would like to suggest that we start talking about what sex is. We often look at it is as something that you do, when in reality, it is something that you are. If you will consider a nun or a monk, both of them are sexual creatures. The nun does all that she does as a woman and the monk does all that he does as a man. That neither of them function in a sexual way does not deprive from either of them being fully male or fully female. We cannot say that the lover on his honeymoon acts and then he becomes a sexual being. He acts, because he is already a sexual being. Thus, I will be referring in the future to the act itself as intercourse and the status of the person as sex.

Now that the terms are defined, it is time to look at where this wonder came from. Christians will agree that sex was first the idea of God. However, could it be that sexuality comes closer to the heart of God than we realize? Could it be that what we consider sexuality is actually an aspect of the nature of God?

Let me be clear to the first argument I anticipate. John 4:24 says that God is Spirit. Are you describing God in physical terms? The problem with such an argument is that it views sex as purely physical. I am not in anyway describing the Trinity as having male or female genitalia. While intercourse is a physical act no doubt, I believe it’s an act of the soul as well. I believe that while there are male and female characteristics of our bodies, we also have souls that are male and female. Based on the doctrine of traducianism, I would say that our bodies are often matched to correspond to our souls.

Is there any biblical evidence for saying that sexuality belongs at the heart of God? There is. In Genesis 1:26-27, we are told that God created man and woman in his image. Christians do not believe that the image is something physical. While there may be differing interpretations, I see the image of God as humanity bearing many attributes of God though in a far lesser sense. We are rational, have a spiritual sense, possess morality, have an implicit understanding of logic, etc. Along these lines, I will include sexuality.

This shouldn’t be a shock. We know that masculinity and femininity is more than how the body is built. One can be a heavyweight bodybuilder and still not be a man at heart. A female could be a supermodel dazzling every male onlooker with her beauty, and still not be a woman at heart. Instead, we see certain traits that embody each gender. For instance, the masculine gender is a warrior gender that longs to be the breadwinner for the woman, to conquer the world for her, to defeat the enemy, and to protect her from all evil. The feminine gender we tend to picture as the caring and sensitive one, the nurturer for the wounded child, the heart for those who are downcast, and the sustainer of life.

All of these characteristics come from God and God put the male and female together with each embodying some of the characteristics that he possesses in unique strength. When we look at God though, we have to realize that while he possess attributes that we would consider masculine and feminine, he also transcends them. I believe that God identifies himself in male roles simply because leadership was to be the responsibility of the man. Having the first person of the Trinity describe himself as Father and the second reveal himself as Son shows us the value that masculinity plays, while not downgrading the role of the feminine.

What do I mean by this? Now is the time to start explaining with romance. The idea of dating is a new phenomenon. However, I do believe that our desires still indicate much of the truth of what God intended. Of course, I can only speak entirely from a guy’s perspective, but this is probably for the best since it will parallel how God pursues his bride in Scripture.

The romance starts with seeing the beauty. Something about her stands out and before too long, one is thinking of Song of Songs 4:7. “You are altogether beautiful my darling, and there is no blemish in you.” The sight of the beauty leads to the desire. Before too long, the beauty is all that can be thought about and every moment of the day is spent wondering what can be done to win over the heart of the beauty. Dante will not allow anyone to tell him that Beatrice is just a peasant girl and neither will the man longing for the desire of his eyes.

For the true man who is seeking to win her heart, while he is no doubt thinking about intercourse, he wants more than that. He can’t describe it. He wants her. He cannot separate her beauty from her or her sexuality from her. It is built into her just as her DNA is. If he just wanted her body, we could present him with a corpse. He wants more. He wants body and soul.

Let us suppose this man is blessed and wins the beauty. What a night this must be! The beauty reveals herself little by little inviting the man to go to places he’s never been before and experience wonders he’s never experienced before. She is ready to trust him and she must be. She has to expose herself fully and make herself vulnerable for the act to be true. Nudity is not essential, but it would lessen the mood as it would make one think that something was being held back. No. Nothing must be held back at this moment.

So, the woman invites the man to come into her. He is invited to release his strength and his life into her and the woman receives with expectation. He gives her all that he has and she willingly receives. The woman does not have to give anything back as simply her trust and love of him is enough. All he asks at that moment is for her.

Such a beautiful scene this is and how it rages up desire within the soul, especially for those of us who still wait for this. We are truly getting a portion of eternity within this moment. Intercourse is a picture of the most powerful commitment on Earth and is a reflection of the love of God. How much we must respect this sacred and holy gift!

Too many today though are not respecting this gift though. Instead, intercourse is seen as merely a tool for pleasure. Indeed, many a man in our society says he is looking for a woman, but that is the last thing he wants to find. He is looking for pleasure and he just wants a female body to be the tool to bring about that pleasure.

I recently thought about this more as I have a situation where I think a friend of mine might be living with his girlfriend. Picture if this is true the pressure each is put under. The woman realizes that she is being tested for marriage so she must perform sexually to please. There is no freedom to be who she is. She has to perform or she doesn’t get the commitment. The man also is lowering himself. Does he just believe that he’s not sure if he can please the woman? Is he not testing himself as well?

Intercourse must take place in the proper order. Trust must be given before there is fellowship. How romantic is it to be giving all of yourself to someone of the opposite sex realizing that they just aren’t willing to commit to you? We cannot reduce sexuality to a mere function. It is the nature of our souls and we only lower ourselves in the process.

Furthermore, consider the spiritual implications. When we split apart the atom, we end up with Hiroshima and Nagasaki ruins. If we cause that much damage in the physical realm for treating physical bonds lightly, will we not suffer for treating spiritual bonds lightly in the spiritual realm? When we come to see sex as sacred though, we will honor it more and hopefully, enjoy it more.

This is truly something beautiful on Earth, but what if we took it further. Consider that in Genesis 2:24, the man and woman are described as echad. In the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4, the same word is used to describe God as one. This refers to a one that is a unity. Unity in diversity in fact, is a strong philosophical argument for belief in the Trinity.

What if this love is a picture of the relationship within the Trinity? We have to remember that we cannot label the persons of the Godhead as purely male or female. Instead, they transcend both. This is where the Filoque clause comes into such importance. The Son we say in Trinitarian theology is eternally begotten. There has always been love going on then between the Father and the Son and from the love of the Father and Son proceeds the Holy Spirit. Is it any wonder that when we have the love of man and woman on Earth, that out of that love proceeds new life?

Thus, the most intimate of relationships on Earth is a picture of the intimate love that goes on in the Trinity. The physical act has a spiritual counterpart. This doesn’t downplay the physical. The physical is good. God created it after all and God has blessed the marriage union within the context of marriages. It should not come as a surprise since it’s picture of the love that we are invited to partake of.

Could this be what our great desire of? Could this be what the human heart entirely is longing for? We are looking for the awesome love of God and too often, are trying to find it in casual intercourse. Even marriage will not totally satisfy this desire, but it will get us closer. Also, if we consider this pleasure as a picture of Heaven while being the experiencing and two persons coming together in union, then we could say that this is a correspondence to Heaven. In the latter case, we desire to be with God and be in him and he in us.

Could it also be that God is showing us some of this in miracles? God is releasing his love into the world and new life comes in as a result. Miracles are indeed heaven sent as God sends his love down to us each time, with the greatest of all taking place in the resurrection, where God showed us exactly how much he loves us and desires to be with us, the strongest of romantic gestures.

We should also learn from this that sex is to be relational. God is relational at his very heart and we should be relational as well. Christianity has no place for someone to be a lone wolf. This would lead to us being confessing Trinitarians and practicing Arians. We are to be relation in our existence as the Trinity is relational.

This also tells us then how to love others which effects how we love sexually. We are to love each other for who they are not for what they do. The Father loves the Son simply because he’s the Son. So, we should love our fellow man simply because they bear the image of God. Today, we often love people based on what they do, a contradiction to what we see in the Trinity.

In conclusion, I would like to suggest that we take sexuality more seriously. We cannot shame this as a disgusting part of the creation. On the other hand, we cannot fully indulge in it carelessly as a small part of our being merely for pleasure. Sex too is a revelation of God and we should thank him for it and enjoy it.

500


Notice – The ministries featured in this section are guests of this site and very often not active members of debate forums. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

themuzicman
January 9th 2006, 09:17 AM
You never really address your assertion that God is sexual.

Michael

WyEtte
January 9th 2006, 03:26 PM
Sex is the ultimate memory trainer. The imagination created by the holding of hands, the hug etc etc is incredible. it is not to be believed ... in other words it is of God. That's the secret and we need know no more to understand it. To see the unseen is the magnificience. To be good one must remember the right thing to do at the given time. We are what we remember and the imagination is our way of doing so. I feel I know Christ and many others, long passed, because of the figments in my imagination, they live today and that's immortality. To be good we must teach those who follow how to live right and why giving up some things leads to a better life. In fact if we only think as Phil 4:8, we know life is hard at best, but there are magnificient suprises.


This e mail composed and written using MouthEar computer technology. This process needs no keyboard, nor mouse, nor monitor. Please forgive any errors and/or omissions which may have occurred due to the enthusiasm of the author.

Trout
January 14th 2006, 02:18 PM
Come on now, I know you people are intrigued by the title. :bump:

dlarson
January 15th 2006, 02:04 PM
Thank you for bringing up this important topic. I agree with you that we need to "take sexuality more seriously." Theology textbooks and models often miss important loci (like the Holy Spirit), and sex/sexuality is certainly among the important missing-in-action loci for theology. The Kreeft quote is an interesting starting point, and I would argue we can learn a lot from "old" theologies of sex and sexuality, looking at Scripture, to inform a "glorious new" theology. I love his use of the word "glorious," for certainly sex and sexuality should be something to celebrate, and your essay celebrates sex. I recommend Catherine Keller's book Face of the Deep: A Theology of Becoming, although focused on the theological locus of creation, it presents an intriguing theology of sex/uality and gender as well.

In Christian love and dialogue, here are a couple of thoughts I have in response to reading your essay.

(1) Definitions - Your discussion moves between sex, marriage, and sexuality without clearly defining and differentiating these things. Presenting a "theology of sex" requires definitions and clarity around assumptions. Although you make this distinction in the 5th paragraph, you don't keep the distinction clear in your discussion. When I hear "sex", I don't assume marriage or sexual intercourse. "Sex" is a biological trait. Sexuality and gender are actions, marriage is a covenantal relationship. These are all different things. You sometimes use "sex" to mean sexual intercourse. So, an objection to you, a virgin, discussing "sex" can only be raised if "sex" is limited to "sexual intercourse." A "theology" of something is inclusive and broad not narrowed to one activity. A "theology of sex" encompasses many foci, including sexuality, biological sex, gender stereotypes, gender construction, marriage, and sexual intercourse.

(2) God as Relational - You rightly point out that God is relational, that God is Spirit, but God is also relationship. You make an excellent point about the spiritual and nonphysical aspect of intercourse. I'm curious about why you bring in Traducianism. Making an argument based on Traducianism is, I believe, skating on thin (and for some, heretical) ice. This is one of the assumptions that perhaps you could explain. As a Christian, I believe that my soul was uniquely created by God, Traducianism argues for organic generation of the soul (that is, I inherited my soul from my parents). I don't understand why you use Traducianism as part of your argument.

(3) God's Image or Gender Stereotypes? In paragraph 8, you quote Genesis 1:26-27 as God created man and woman in "his" image. Actually, the scriptures say "Let us make humankind on our image." Certainly in the Hebrew, and in most translations, this appears to point to the Trinitarian, inherently relational nature of God, not necessarily to gender or sexuality. This is evidence that "relationship" is at the heart of God, and sexuality might be construed to be part of that. You then move to gender stereotypes and gender construction ("masculinity" and "femininity"). The "feminine gender" as portrayed in Holy Scripture is very complex and includes a wide range of "femininities". The examples we have in scripture include women with such diverse "femininities" as Ruth, Deborah, and Peninnah (not at all a "nurturer" or "caring and sensitive"). In a "theology of sex" based on Holy Scripture, gender is reduced to a caricature by limiting it in the way that you do in your paragraph ten. The story of Deborah and Barak contradicts your stereotypes. What we are shown in scripture is a wide range of expressions of gender. Women are often portrayed in the Hebrew Bible as cunning and wise. Men range from warriors to gentle shepherds. Limiting gender stereotypes is limiting God. Sexual intercourse in a covenantal relationship may well be a glimpse into the divine and eternity. However, your vision with the woman as a passive recipient ("The woman does not have to give anything back as simply her trust and love of him is enough") hardly echoes the Biblical picture of women. Women are rarely, if ever, portrayed as passive recipients as you indicate in your vision of intercourse here. Intimate relationship as described in scripture is very active. Only rape and other sorts of abuse have a power imbalance with some being passive. Musing about the gender(s) of God, in the Holy in Trinity, is challenging and demands a more thoughtful and thorough analysis. I think exploring the intimacy within the Trinity as well as the intimacy between God and humankind can give us "a picture of the intimate love". Also, see theologians such as Catherine Keller, Mary Daly, Rita Nakshima Brock, K.E. Borreson, Mercy Amba Oduyoye, and Rosemary Radford Ruether.

(4) Sex as Revelation - Revelation is an important focus in theology that is about our learning and knowing about the divine as revealed. Sex as revelation? Perhaps, this is one way God reveals Godself "Sex too is a revelation of God and we should thank him for it and enjoy it." Again, here I wonder if you mean sexuality, gender, sexual intercourse or all of the above? That is an interesting concept in itself!

Again, thank you for lifting sexuality as a theological topic! I would like to see it explored in terms of covenant as well. It is no coincidence, I am sure, that the outward and visible sign of God's covenant with the Hebrew people was circumcision. Another topic for discussion! :wink:

In Christ, DHL

cazz
January 22nd 2006, 07:57 PM
Actually everything is built on the foundation of masculine and feminine polarities, including God. You are not far from enlightenment (the Christ mind) when you ponder such things.

God is not only the "Father", as Jesus was referring to Lord Maitreya, an ascended soul who attained Christ perfection before Jesus' life on earth, but furthermore, God is a representation of everything--existence itself. I myself am an individualization of God, I am God's son, I am the Christ. We all are.

Within my human body I experience things that provoke facets of my own being that correspond with my "soul genes". But, we are always evolving, and it is impossible to separate creation from God, because nothing exists apart from the one existence. Everything is fashion of itself.

God is male and female (father and mother)--or, the Alpha and the Omega as you might be familiar with. The manifestor, and the manifest. The Holy Spirit being the interaction here (which, really, the whole "manifestor, messenger, and manifest" is actually a single entity/mind, and not three separate entities), and the product of it all/whole being the Christ. Jesus embodies such principals, and so can any individual person, Jesus is not special.

Now, the reality is also that in 553 A.D. or so, the Church, feeling threatened by the spiritual freedom, decided to remove/oppress teachings of reincarnation and the pre-existent soul as well as other teachings and call them heresy and anathema. They are nonethless valid and real teachings of Jesus and the Christian movement (the real Christian movement), but have been called gnosticism, apocryphal, and as I suggest, heresy.

But, anyway, there are still teachings of reincarnation that made it through to the canonized scriptures, and you can still read them and prove this for yourself. Along this line you see that if you want to follow something and call it Christian, you are going to have to understand that souls are actually androgynous. No soul is entirely masculine and another female, even as the human body is androgynous.

Obviously some human froms have more masculine energy and some more feminine than others...and this is true with souls, but for the most part everything is androgynous. Our right brain is female, our left is male. And, the male form actually starts out female and then manifests into masculine as the expanding energy (masculine) takes over and the clitoris expands into a penis, rather than contracting into a vagina. Nonetheless, men are left with nipples that are otherwise proof that Adam and Eve are symbolic and not an actual representation of the evolution of the physical mankind here on earth. Indeed, they absolutely contradict this theory.

Sex itself is a union of our masculine and feminine self. Our masculine self is Christ (which we are, and is not unique to the persona of Jesus), which is the higher, perfect self residing in the spiritual realm, while our feminine self descended into duality which is this physical, dense, near-unconscious realm. Our masculine and feminine self are connected and never have been separate (we are God and nothing is separate from God), and essentially at heart everyone is the face of God, the one mind, the one being. Our souls and human bodies are simply expressions of ourself (as we are this one God, this one existence), much like our cells are expressions of the one body.

However, eventually awakening will occur, even as a fetus wakes up and becomes conscious of itself and lives a life on earth after being birthed. The second coming of Christ is this, which is union with the divine. We all become awakened spiritually, much like a man and a woman come together and their energy polarizes with each other, flowering into life. Even so, we all are this one existential entity, even as the cells in one body form one being.

It is destined that we all wake up and function as one mind, but for now we are like conflicting, sleeping thoughts. We are all awakening though, and I myself am quite awakened and can testify it, even as Jesus and Buddha and other mystics have. We come together psychically, and our minds interact like thoughts in a single mind, and together we awaken and raise up into the one collective humanity, which is a single functioning mind/body. We will no longer see "humans", but rather a single body, even as a fetus stops being a primordial conglomeration of cells, an embryonic soup, and all the cells become a conscious persona.'

But, in order to get here, you will need to balance your masculine and feminine energy and start functioning on the androgynous level. This does not mean disrespect your physical form, but rather know that you are your thoughts (spirit) and not your atoms, though atoms are conscious too.

ApologiaPhoenix
January 24th 2006, 02:20 PM
Actually everything is built on the foundation of masculine and feminine polarities, including God. You are not far from enlightenment (the Christ mind) when you ponder such things.

God is not only the "Father", as Jesus was referring to Lord Maitreya, an ascended soul who attained Christ perfection before Jesus' life on earth, but furthermore, God is a representation of everything--existence itself. I myself am an individualization of God, I am God's son, I am the Christ. We all are.

Within my human body I experience things that provoke facets of my own being that correspond with my "soul genes". But, we are always evolving, and it is impossible to separate creation from God, because nothing exists apart from the one existence. Everything is fashion of itself.

God is male and female (father and mother)--or, the Alpha and the Omega as you might be familiar with. The manifestor, and the manifest. The Holy Spirit being the interaction here (which, really, the whole "manifestor, messenger, and manifest" is actually a single entity/mind, and not three separate entities), and the product of it all/whole being the Christ. Jesus embodies such principals, and so can any individual person, Jesus is not special.

Now, the reality is also that in 553 A.D. or so, the Church, feeling threatened by the spiritual freedom, decided to remove/oppress teachings of reincarnation and the pre-existent soul as well as other teachings and call them heresy and anathema. They are nonethless valid and real teachings of Jesus and the Christian movement (the real Christian movement), but have been called gnosticism, apocryphal, and as I suggest, heresy.

But, anyway, there are still teachings of reincarnation that made it through to the canonized scriptures, and you can still read them and prove this for yourself. Along this line you see that if you want to follow something and call it Christian, you are going to have to understand that souls are actually androgynous. No soul is entirely masculine and another female, even as the human body is androgynous.

Obviously some human froms have more masculine energy and some more feminine than others...and this is true with souls, but for the most part everything is androgynous. Our right brain is female, our left is male. And, the male form actually starts out female and then manifests into masculine as the expanding energy (masculine) takes over and the clitoris expands into a penis, rather than contracting into a vagina. Nonetheless, men are left with nipples that are otherwise proof that Adam and Eve are symbolic and not an actual representation of the evolution of the physical mankind here on earth. Indeed, they absolutely contradict this theory.

Sex itself is a union of our masculine and feminine self. Our masculine self is Christ (which we are, and is not unique to the persona of Jesus), which is the higher, perfect self residing in the spiritual realm, while our feminine self descended into duality which is this physical, dense, near-unconscious realm. Our masculine and feminine self are connected and never have been separate (we are God and nothing is separate from God), and essentially at heart everyone is the face of God, the one mind, the one being. Our souls and human bodies are simply expressions of ourself (as we are this one God, this one existence), much like our cells are expressions of the one body.

However, eventually awakening will occur, even as a fetus wakes up and becomes conscious of itself and lives a life on earth after being birthed. The second coming of Christ is this, which is union with the divine. We all become awakened spiritually, much like a man and a woman come together and their energy polarizes with each other, flowering into life. Even so, we all are this one existential entity, even as the cells in one body form one being.

It is destined that we all wake up and function as one mind, but for now we are like conflicting, sleeping thoughts. We are all awakening though, and I myself am quite awakened and can testify it, even as Jesus and Buddha and other mystics have. We come together psychically, and our minds interact like thoughts in a single mind, and together we awaken and raise up into the one collective humanity, which is a single functioning mind/body. We will no longer see "humans", but rather a single body, even as a fetus stops being a primordial conglomeration of cells, an embryonic soup, and all the cells become a conscious persona.'

But, in order to get here, you will need to balance your masculine and feminine energy and start functioning on the androgynous level. This does not mean disrespect your physical form, but rather know that you are your thoughts (spirit) and not your atoms, though atoms are conscious too.

I actually have to disagree with much of this and you can feel free to start a new thread on this topic in apologetics if you wish or in unorthodox theology. I see no basis for reincarnation in Scripture and I will glady go toe-to-toe on that.

Secondly, you've made arguments of how the body develops, but there is no basis for them. If this is a scientific claim, I will need to see the scientific evidence.

Thirdly, your theory relies greatly on macroevolution, yet I have numerous problems with that theory. If the foundation does not stand, I will not trust the theory built on that foundation.

Most importantly though, to say Jesus is nothing special is entirely the problem. Scripture indicates that Jesus is the only begotten and the visible image of the invisible God. If Jesus is nothing special, we sure spend a lot of time on this board talking about nobody special.

cazz
January 27th 2006, 12:14 PM
Most importantly though, to say Jesus is nothing special is entirely the problem. Scripture indicates that Jesus is the only begotten and the visible image of the invisible God. If Jesus is nothing special, we sure spend a lot of time on this board talking about nobody special. There is always room for error. You do not think there are cultures of people chasing lies? Gnostic and apocryphal teachings reaffirm the truth that the Christ is a concept, like the Buddha, which everyone may achieve. There are many people proclaiming Buddha, Krishna, and other figures as the only special people. Are you going to continue fighting with them like children arguing over whose bicycle is better than whose?

Also, these notions of Jesus as the only special Savior were presented to help people in the Jewish religion get away from their murderous rituals against animals. It was a concept to support the growth of Christianity, and certainly not one to be dug up hundreds of years later to be worshiped. You are following less of Jesus' real words and teachings and more of the church's interpretations and traditions, just like the Jews were doing when Jesus rebuked them for it.

Furthermore, Jesus identified himself with a mindset of existence's reality, which is the Spirit. Everyone can do this, and it is not anyone's right nor responsibility to attack them as blasphemers. In fact, the real definition of blaspheming which was being taught is denying that God is everything, quite the anti of what people teach today. You have to recognize the modern gap.

But even as Jesus tried to awaken the Jews to their misinterpretations during their time of the things they proclaimed they were following, so I do not expect you to immediately believe me when I tell you that your overestimation of the credibility in your religion of choice just simply does not prove much of anything either.

As (http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/vestigial.htm) for the men being female first, there are places to discover this, here is one though it seems to be arguing against Creationism which may be unattractive to you, but it is a good reference nonetheless if we are looking for a scientific outlook.

There are certainly scientific studies if you will search for them, if you are honestly looking for truth in life rather than following lies. I think this is a very serious issue for you if you believe in the story of Adam and Eve as completely literal, so if you want to feel justifed in your life for your beliefs, I only assume you will give a good effort to do further research.
http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/vestigial.htm

Male Nipples
My grandfather, down on the farm, used to have a quaint expression, usually leveled at some lazy individual: as useless as the tits on a boar. Creationists, think hard and send me a carefully reasoned answer explaining why God would create both boars and men (and all other male mammals) with useless nipples (which can even be dangerous--men can get breast cancer). The simple biological-evolutionary answer is that as embryos we are all structurally female first, including proto-breast tissue. Only later in fetal development do the male hormones kick in and modify the feminine genital structures into the masculine. But we men are left with useless breast tissue and nipples, which never get the hormonal signal at puberty to develop into functioning organs. The whole thing seems a messy and cobbled-up system for producing two sexes. Why in Heaven's name would a Designer worth His salt come up with so inefficient a system, with useless (and sometimes dangerous) parts left over? (Evidence of our heritage: in some of our more "primitive" relatives, gender is changeable throughout life. Some species of fish and reptiles can switch genders without the help of a Danish surgeon. They just respond to environmental cues.)
-suggested by David Pickering...but hey, I was thinking of it too!

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=468277



You just cannot reconcile the fact that many conflicting religions teach a "special person". How many special people are there? And if one claims only one, then how do they settle the dispute? You cannot, and, anyway, if anyone is special, life is not worth living. So, I am not going to entertain this discussion very long.

GhostontheNet
January 29th 2006, 04:32 AM
(3) God's Image or Gender Stereotypes? [/B] In paragraph 8, you quote Genesis 1:26-27 as God created man and woman in "his" image. Actually, the scriptures say "Let us make humankind on our image." Certainly in the Hebrew, and in most translations, this appears to point to the Trinitarian, inherently relational nature of God, not necessarily to gender or sexuality. This is evidence that "relationship" is at the heart of God, and sexuality might be construed to be part of that. You then move to gender stereotypes and gender construction ("masculinity" and "femininity"). The "feminine gender" as portrayed in Holy Scripture is very complex and includes a wide range of "femininities". The examples we have in scripture include women with such diverse "femininities" as Ruth, Deborah, and Peninnah (not at all a "nurturer" or "caring and sensitive"). In a "theology of sex" based on Holy Scripture, gender is reduced to a caricature by limiting it in the way that you do in your paragraph ten. The story of Deborah and Barak contradicts your stereotypes. What we are shown in scripture is a wide range of expressions of gender. Women are often portrayed in the Hebrew Bible as cunning and wise. Men range from warriors to gentle shepherds. Limiting gender stereotypes is limiting God. Sexual intercourse in a covenantal relationship may well be a glimpse into the divine and eternity. However, your vision with the woman as a passive recipient ("The woman does not have to give anything back as simply her trust and love of him is enough") hardly echoes the Biblical picture of women. Women are rarely, if ever, portrayed as passive recipients as you indicate in your vision of intercourse here. Intimate relationship as described in scripture is very active. Only rape and other sorts of abuse have a power imbalance with some being passive. Musing about the gender(s) of God, in the Holy in Trinity, is challenging and demands a more thoughtful and thorough analysis. I think exploring the intimacy within the Trinity as well as the intimacy between God and humankind can give us "a picture of the intimate love". Also, see theologians such as Catherine Keller, Mary Daly, Rita Nakshima Brock, K.E. Borreson, Mercy Amba Oduyoye, and Rosemary Radford Ruether. To be sure, the simplistic analysis of gender, which is in itself not to be confused with the sexes, is built upon broad brush to try to play the old antiquity card to evade the implication that gender itself is in part or in full a social construction by leviathan (firguratively, ala Isaiah) for its own purposes. But on the one hand, by these standards Yeshua Christ Himself was more of a woman than a man, doubtless the psychological reason why art with anglo-saxon long haired gentle faced Yeshua image remains so ubiquitous. But who are you to say that the one true man to ever walk the face of the planet, as Pilate himself ironically testified with the words in John "Behold the Man", Pilate himself being a very "manly" man often commiting the classic "manly" pursuit of grinding the world to its knees at any cost - evidently supposedly leaving it to the woman to pick up the pieces from the garbage which the man had oh so affectionately created for her like cats leaving dead carcasses for their masters (everything really for his selfish self however, creating a black planet of darkness and corrosion and pain and sorrow and tribulation and tears), or perhaps to protect her from this former sort of man with the same weapons of cold vivisection.

If that's what being a man really is, it would be better to forsake that and be like Yeshua. Fortunately, however, the disciplines of anthropology have revealed example of cultures where women have more traits we associate with "masculinity" and men have more traits we would associate with "femininity". I see no more compelling reason not to believe that the vast majority of many of these traits are enculturated by leviathan handing out toys to unwitting youngsters not realizing what they are being molded to become, good or bad, or, as often, a distressing mixture of both with nobody really caring or taking it seriously.

So too, launching cute little pot shots like "Christianity has no place for the lone wolf" is all well and good, but the fact of the matter is that God salvaged me out of the garbage where leviathan had thrown me out as useless to the machine it had built because of the way He had constructed me, though I am still forsaken by those gears God created and sought out that are still within the machine as safety valves - and, it's ok, I know my allegiences lie with God and not men. However, the article does make valid points desperately needed in a world that has forsaken the purposes of the creator God and His kingdom in favor of leviathans empire of greed, blood, and death, and general perversion of all creation including sex. As it is written:

Isaiah 26:16-27:1 ESV
16O LORD, in distress they sought you;
they poured out a whispered prayer
when your discipline was upon them.
17Like a pregnant woman
who writhes and cries out in her pangs
when she is near to giving birth,
so were we because of you, O LORD;
18we were pregnant, we writhed,
but we have given birth to wind.
We have accomplished no deliverance in the earth,
and the inhabitants of the world have not fallen.
19Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise.
You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy!
For your dew is a dew of light,
and the earth will give birth to the dead.

20Come, my people, enter your chambers,
and shut your doors behind you;
hide yourselves for a little while
until the fury has passed by.
21For behold, the LORD is coming out from his place
to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity,
and the earth will disclose the blood shed on it,
and will no more cover its slain.
1In that day the LORD with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea.

And 1 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 ESV

22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "all things are put in subjection," it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

spauline
February 5th 2006, 09:41 PM
Dear Apologia Nick or Trout,

Your association of human sexuality with the Trinity is right on true. The late Holy Father's Theology of the Body is saturated with these concepts. Yes, indeed, human sexuality is itself a very Revelation the Infinite Communion of Love in the Persons of the Blessed Trinity.

Just as a side note, and not to be mean, but as you indicate in the section talking about intercourse, the gift of selves, one to another, must be complete, holding nothing back, just as Christ refused the drug before crucifixion, in order that He might completely empty himself, holding nothing back.

But, on that assumption, then, clearly any form of artificial birth control destroys such body language and is lying with one's body. It is like saying, "I give myself to you/ receive you, but not completely." Most of Protestantism caved into the acceptance of artificial birth control in the steps of the Anglicans in 1930. Even also some of the Eastern Orthodox Churches have now accepted it as well. So, more or less, only the RCC has remained firm in denying the moral legitimacy of artificial birth control.

This may come as a shock, but the entire moral collapse of sexual morality in the European Civilizations was prophesied by the popes in question who warned against it as deriving from the widespread use of artificial birth control. On that vein, then, no person will ever have the fullest understanding of human sexuality from a spiritual standpoint if they believe in any form of artificial birth control. It would be like saying, using your very analogy of the Trinity, that the Persons of the Holy Trinity would not either fully accept or fully offer themselves to One Another. No, in Our Triune God, the Divine Persons give of themselves and receive One Another Whole and Entire, holding nothing back, giving everything.

May God Bless you, Trout,

scott

spauline
February 8th 2006, 02:48 AM
Dear Apologia,


I would like to apologize for my harshness of the last reply. :sad: I think I was being too triumphalistic or somehow attacking Protestants or Protestantism in an uncharitable manner. I ask you to please forgive me. I think there are way more good Protestants in this country, at least from the middleofroad to conservative ones, than there are good Catholics, so I didn't intend to put down or blame any individual Protestant or group of them. I just wanted to point out that artificial birth control is a very serious affront to chastity and marriage and that it has had a real terrible impact on the modern world, especially the family. But, again, I don't wish to blame or attack any Protestant or them as a whole for this. I just wanted to lovingly point out that the massive immorality in sexuality in the world today will not be able to be healed without essentially eliminating unnatural birth control.

But, again, you're right on the money in making the connection between the Trinity and human sexuality! :smile: May God Bless you, Apologia, for your wonderful insights into human sexuality.

In Him,
scott

hereoisreal
March 27th 2006, 10:03 AM
Rev 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
Rev 12:2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Jhn 16:21, "A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world."

Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne.

It's not over till the fat lady (pregnant wife) sings.,

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an AZ (first & last), and upon a colt the foal of an AZ (first & last).

ApologiaNick, this is how life is created.

Zero

G.C. Howard
April 23rd 2007, 05:56 PM
There is always room for error. You do not think there are cultures of people chasing lies? Gnostic and apocryphal teachings reaffirm the truth that the Christ is a concept, like the Buddha, which everyone may achieve. There are many people proclaiming Buddha, Krishna, and other figures as the only special people. Are you going to continue fighting with them like children arguing over whose bicycle is better than whose?

Also, these notions of Jesus as the only special Savior were presented to help people in the Jewish religion get away from their murderous rituals against animals. It was a concept to support the growth of Christianity, and certainly not one to be dug up hundreds of years later to be worshiped. You are following less of Jesus' real words and teachings and more of the church's interpretations and traditions, just like the Jews were doing when Jesus rebuked them for it.

Furthermore, Jesus identified himself with a mindset of existence's reality, which is the Spirit. Everyone can do this, and it is not anyone's right nor responsibility to attack them as blasphemers. In fact, the real definition of blaspheming which was being taught is denying that God is everything, quite the anti of what people teach today. You have to recognize the modern gap.

But even as Jesus tried to awaken the Jews to their misinterpretations during their time of the things they proclaimed they were following, so I do not expect you to immediately believe me when I tell you that your overestimation of the credibility in your religion of choice just simply does not prove much of anything either.

As (http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/vestigial.htm) for the men being female first, there are places to discover this, here is one though it seems to be arguing against Creationism which may be unattractive to you, but it is a good reference nonetheless if we are looking for a scientific outlook.

There are certainly scientific studies if you will search for them, if you are honestly looking for truth in life rather than following lies. I think this is a very serious issue for you if you believe in the story of Adam and Eve as completely literal, so if you want to feel justifed in your life for your beliefs, I only assume you will give a good effort to do further research.
http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/vestigial.htm


http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=468277



You just cannot reconcile the fact that many conflicting religions teach a "special person". How many special people are there? And if one claims only one, then how do they settle the dispute? You cannot, and, anyway, if anyone is special, life is not worth living. So, I am not going to entertain this discussion very long.

Although I don't know the answer to the question asked about nipples, I'm pretty sure there is an answer. This is the same ol' same ol' from the naturalist camp--they had a list of over 100 'vestigial' organs saying how that proved evolution.

A. Those organs have ALL shown to serve a purpose within the body.
B. This doesn't prove evolution.. infact it would show de-evolution, if it were true.
C. The author makes the claim that it's evidence for faulty design. He makes the assumption that he knows what perfect design is.

"No, the design explanation for male nipples makes more sense. But even if male nipples had no known use, there is another important reason why they exist in today’s males. That is, they are the result of an efficient plan of embryonic development. Human embryos contain characteristics of both sexes at first, because they all have basically the same genetic information, and this information is expressed as efficiently as possible as the embryo develops. This is design economy. For example, in all human embryos, at first both the müllerian duct system (female) and the wolffian duct system (male) develop, because both sexes have the genetic information for these structures. Incidentally, this refutes the urban myth that human embryos ‘start off female’. The subsequent differences are the result of designed chemical signals that control the expression of the information. E.g., a gene set usually found on the Y chromosome controls the levels of testosterone and dihydroxytestosterone (DHT) secretion. Above a certain level, these hormones suppress the development of the müllerian duct system and promote the wolffian duct system, so the embryo takes on masculine characteristics. Below a certain hormone level, the opposite happens, and the embryo takes on female characteristics."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative10-23-2000.asp

It's from AiG, which I really don't approve of, but atleast some of their articles are a little descent and scientifically sound.