One of the reasons sexuality is such an important aspect of human life and nature is that it spans so many different sides of philosophy and experience--there are not only logical and conceptual truths about sexuality and how it relates to morality, theology, and relationships as a whole, but there are also potentially deep experiential sides to it on an individualistic and social level. It is almost inevitable that someone who tries to think thoroughly about a topic not predominantly related to sexuality will still brush up against sexuality in some way, and any sincere seeker of truth can recognize that sexuality is an entire part of reality to be understood in its own right.
Indeed, sexuality spills over into other areas of philosophy and life precisely because it is such an important thing on its own. It does not need to connect with other concepts and aspects of reality in order to merit philosophical attention, but it still connects with them anyway. Everything from introspection to the nature of friendships and romantic partnerships to the metaphysical nature of clothing overlaps with sexuality, even if the truth about how sexuality intersects with these things is often different than what many people believe or even want to be true. Sexuality is actually one of the most far-reaching topics a person could contemplate!
There is so much more to sexuality even just within the context of Christian theology than just that the Bible specifically condemns certain sexual acts like adultery, rape, or incest. Unfortunately, most Christians fail to even think about the Biblical ramifications of sexuality beyond whether or not something like homosexual expression is sinful or how God is supportive of consensual marital sexual acts. Almost never will one find a Christian openly talking about how not all sexual expression outside of marriage is Biblically immoral (masturbation, sexual flirtation, and so on are not condemned at all), partly because almost no Christians let reason and the Bible bring them to aspects of Christian theology rather than erroneous church traditions.
Moreover, almost never will one find a Christian or a non-Christian who understands deeply how something like bikinis are objectively, universally nonsexual even though they might or might not be perceived or enjoyed in a sexual way--most people just do not think or talk about things like this despite their importance or do anything more than pose questions they pretend have no demonstrable, objective answers. Both inside and outside the church, even very basic aspects of sexuality that fall outside of arbitrary issues focused on by culture are, for the most part, just ignored. This, in turn, means almost no one ever gets to the point where they understand sexuality as it is due to reason and thus never can experience the relief, fulfillment, and freedom rationalistic knowledge of sexuality can bring.
Sexuality does not need to be contemplated only when it overlaps with other issues for the sake of those other issues. Those connections reveal more about the specific relationship between sexuality and other truths or concepts than they do about sexuality itself, and things can be understood, appreciated, and savored simply for what they are. With reason and introspection, plenty of truths about sexuality are already accessible even apart from social experiences, whether in an educational context or one of sexual expression between partners. All a person needs to do to discover these is just reason out what objectively follows from certain truths or ideas about sexuality and be attentive to the experiential side of the subject they probably carry with them into daily life.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteThank you for writing this blog. Your style of getting straight to the point and being frank about scripture is a refreshing sight after years of listening to people claiming to be moral authorities pontificating on their various beliefs.
I wonder what your thoughts are on the Biblical reason for condemning homosexual behavior in humans. I sometimes wonder how to generalize the commandments given in scripture, such as for example how one would treat intelligent aliens, robots, or even genetically-engineered posthumans. I am wondering how the general prohibition on sex between humans of the same sex would apply to, say, a future population of humans that has been genetically engineered to be hermaphrodites?
Obviously this is irrelevant now, but I find that in dialogue with non-Christians it is easy to point out the immorality of various things prohibited in the Bible. Things like non-comittal sex seem to have distinct negative impacts to the raising of children and the proliferation of sexual addiction among the population. I do wonder if technology has the possibility of lessening these impacts (e.g. birth control and eradication of STDs).
This was such a delightful comment to read, and the questions you raise are quite unique and potentially vital as things like sex robots become more mainstream and the possibility of alien life becomes more openly talked about. That kind of thoughtfulness is always relieving to find!
DeleteWhatever the motivation behind it, God is simply presented in the Bible as condemning homosexual behaviors (not homosexual feelings, as feelings might be involuntary and might not reflect a person's truest intentions and worldview). Since Deuteronomy 22:25-27 condemns rape by nature of it being nonconsensual, homosexual rape perpetrated by a man or woman is already sinful according to the Bible, but even consensual homosexual acts are still condemned. It is not obvious from the Bible what about God's nature would specifically make it true that homosexual activities are immoral, but it is at least clear that he meant for sexuality to only be behaviorally expressed in heterosexual ways or alone. The moral issues of humans having sex with aliens, robots, and so on are a little different!
With aliens, the Biblical prohibition of bestiality (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, 20:15-16) would have the most relevant verses to whether it would ever be permissible for humans and aliens to have sex. Of course, the more humanoid a hypothetical alien species is, the less human-alien sex would have the same problems that sex with an animal like a dog would, such as the potential for a human to force an unwilling animal that is neither fully aware of what is happening nor able to verbally consent. However, if homosexual actions are sinful because they are not heterosexual (not that heterosexual promiscuity, rape, or adultery is alright just because it is heterosexual!), and bestiality is sinful because it is sex between humans and non-human animals, then there would still seem to be something Biblically problematic about sex between humans and aliens unless they were almost indistinguishable from humans in their appearance and biology.
With robots, this is actually a little less challenging in light of the fact that the God of the Bible is not opposed to anything that he did not condemn or that is not sinful given the things he has condemned. Deuteronomy 4:2 says not to add to or subtract from God's commands, and God never condemns using things like sex toys for masturbation or in nonsinful sexual acts between partners. Ultimately, sex robots are like much bigger sex toys, so even if the robot was programmed to act like a person, it is not a living thing and it might not be conscious at all. This might be alarming to some Christians, but it isn't adulterous or otherwise inherently sinful to use sex robots like this!
DeleteAnd with hermaphrodites, it is possible for some intersex people to already be hermaphrodites. What you bring up regarding hermaphrodites is one of the most intriguing things related to homosexuality and Biblical morality that I have ever come across! Sex between hermaphrodites would be different enough from homosexual behaviors to not automatically fall into the same category. All people, though, if Christianity is true, have the same moral obligations regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, or possible intersex condition. Whether or not someone likes the idea of these obligations is not what matters, as these ideas are either true or false no matter what any person wants to be true. It is not even the consequences that are always the reason the Bible condemns certain things, some sexual acts included. If a couple was not subjectively bothered by adultery, it is still sinful for them to engage in it! Thus, even the technological or biological removal of all STDs would not make casual sex morally permissible or evil. That would instead depend on if there is a deity with a moral nature from which it follows that such an act is immoral even if all consequences of it are taken away.
Feel free to ask whatever questions you may have on this or any other post. I welcome comments like this, and I appreciate how specific and yet deeply relevant to Christian theology these issues you brought up are! Sorry for the length of this reply, but I had to split it into two to post it.
I appreciate the reply! I've been struggling coming from a natural law perspective trying to figure out why the church fathers seemed to place so much emphasis on not violating certain precepts. Remembering Deut. 4:2 has kind of laid to rest the idea (to me at least) that there are natural laws not mentioned in the Bible that nonetheless must be followed.
DeleteOne of the concepts that fascinates me is far-future science fiction that takes place long after modern humans are relevant (although such stories usually take place with characters similar to humans for relatability reasons). I feel like a consistent moral system has to be generalizeable for it to be reasonable. If God says humans are not allowed to murder, then I believe the same reason humans may not commit murder ought to also apply to robots or aliens (although non-sapient animals don't know better so they can't be held morally accountable even though we might euthanize them to prevent them from hurting more humans).
I know these questions are way out-there and not really relevant to the modern cultural debate, but one of the things that always bothered me is the idea that God's word has intrinsic meaning and means something beyond "this is true because God says so."
Do you think it is biblically appropriate for homosexuals to masturbate to people of the same gender? It feels like this would allow them to at least partly express the sexuality that they were born with as humans.
Ultimately I just feel that I have a hard time grasping the justice in prohibiting homosexual behavior in the Bible, and if homosexuals are barred from enjoying the same joys that heterosexuals are able to experience in marriage, I feel like God's providence must play some kind of role in it. And I want to know what that is because I think we can be a much stronger witness to nonbelievers if we can demonstrate the reason underlying Christianity.
And yes, I recognize that homosexuals can technically have sex with the opposite sex, but as someone who is personally repulsed by traditional methods of intercourse I know full well how hard it is to experience the unitive aspect of sex in a way that I'm not attracted to, even though I am married.
Of course! I'll always reply as soon as I can!
DeleteNatural law was something I once believed without ever knowing the phrase for it. There are so many logical and Biblical errors in the idea that one can just know if something is right or wrong through conscience, and all of them come into play in best understanding the context of any command of God. Once I became a rationalist, I had to face the truth that any moral obligations that exist cannot be known from subjective perceptions like conscience or irrelevant factors like societal agreement. Moreover, it is not philosophically obvious that some things are morally good or bad in the same way that it is self-evidently obvious that I exist (to doubt or deny my own existence, I must exist) or that logical axioms are true (reason could only be false if it is true, meaning it is inescapably true). Realizing this left me with a devastating crisis for a long time! I realized on a deeper level than I ever had before that morality cannot exist without a deity with a moral mature, but morality could also never be known from conscience, nature, the preferences of other people, and so on. The only options that are logically possible are total nihilism, where there are only moral preferences but nothing is truly good or evil, or a type of theism where God has a moral nature. Hopefully that makes sense so far!
If the latter is true, it is logically impossible to just "know" its moral nature from reason alone, though nothing can be understood apart from reason. God would have to reveal his/its moral nature to me, and thus the fact that there is genuine evidence that Christianity is true means there is evidence for the truth of the Bible's moral claims. If people truly knew morality with nothing but the feelings of conscience, not only would God have never needed to reveal most or any of the commands in the Bible, but Paul would not have been right in admitting that is only through God's moral revelation that is mostly found in Mosaic Law that Christian morality is known (Romans 7:7). You are absolutely correct in thinking that any moral system must be universally binding in order for it to truly, inherently be wrong for someone to carry out something like murder. If morality is tied to God's nature and God's nature does not change (Malachi 3:6), then something that is inherently wrong, like murder (Exodus 21:12), rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27), or adultery (Deuteronomy 22:22) would have to always be wrong, no matter the circumstances. It is just that not even things like this are "obviously" wrong except if a certain worldview like Christianity is true.
Thanks, science fiction has been a big part of my spiritual journey ironically, not because I believe most of the things that secular transhumanists say, but because at least they ask the right questions.
DeleteOne last thing, again regarding homosexuality--you mention conservatives campaigning against same sex marriage whilst ignoring a host of other perversions in society. While it makes sense that we do not live in a theocracy and that the state ought not to make religiously motivated laws, I wonder what your opinion is on the matter of churches recognizing same sex marriages on the basis that it is better for homosexuals to stay committed than to abandon Christianity altogether? I feel that if a church does not recognize same-sex marriages then it ought to also refuse to recognize re-marriage that violates the Bible's specific guidelines on divorce, in order to stay consistent, but I'm not sure if that is the general practice.
It truly is ironic when people like secular transhumanists are on the right track with the issues they wonder about, when they either fall back into subjective perceptions, unprovable conclusions, or foundations that contradict the rest of what they assert. It's also fascinating to see Western culture rightly despise something like racism while rushing towards the kind of genetic manipulation or transhumanist social class that would actually feed into arbitrary discrimination against some persons because of their physical characteristics!
DeleteActually, theocracy tends to be very misunderstood in a general or Christian context. I am in favor of theocracy in that the existence of whatever moral obligations are there and the revelation of those commands would be rooted in God. That includes justice, and this is at the heart of why theological conservatives encourage or allow worse things than mere homosexual behavior. A given punishment for sin--and not all sins deserve to be made crimes--is either just or unjust, as there could not be multiple moral standards for different generations and cultures. Either nothing is just because there is no such thing as morality, or justice is also a reflection of God's nature. Any opposing idea by logical necessity treats morality as a social construct or as knowable through conscience or collective agreement, all things that are irrelevant to truth one way or another. In the context of Christianity, any opposing idea inevitably reduces down to God either giving unjust laws to Israel, an impossibility if God's nature is what defines goodness itself, or God changing his nature after he said he does not (Malachi 3:6 and James 1:17 address this). Most of Mosaic Law, where the Bible details its commands of criminal and social justice, has just been so misunderstood that things like its obvious gender egalitarianism and the fact that even the American prison system is objectively harsher (not to mention full of Biblical atrocities like normalized rape) get ignored by people inside and outside of the church.
Without God, or if the uncaused cause doesn't have a moral nature, morality doesn't exist and the very idea of having laws anyway is therefore irrational. If God does have a moral nature that makes certain criminal punishments obligatory, certain punishments and laws are just even if people hate them. Theological conservatives generally oppose homosexual feelings themselves, not just sinful expressions of homosexuality, and they usually either ignore or even verbally support things like homosexual prison rape. Their own Bible prescribes execution for rape, no matter which gender the aggressor or victim is, and this is far more significant than consensual homosexual behaviors as it is. Still, most Christians care more about lesser issues than they do about rape that is joked about, sometimes in a sexist way (with sexual assault of men in particular being thought of as funny or deserved). Then there are things conservative Christians condemn, like masturbating to the thought or an image of other people, that the Bible does not. It is actually Biblical theonomy/theocracy that opposes their hypocrisy in thinking some rape is morally valid, their support of an unbiblical punishment system like prison (with or without rape involved), and their willingness to condemn that which the Bible does not, such as masturbating to attractive people of the opposite gender. The kind of Biblically legitimate theocracy is consistent with theistic rationalism and is rooted in the evidence for Christianity; it is not a regime imposing unbiblical laws that contradict some of the Bible's commands (such as by prescribing the various kinds of torture that go way beyond the Bible's 40 lashes in Deuteronomy 25:1-3 or by forcing people to stay in prison for life, where they are quite possibly raped or murdered).
DeleteI hope that makes sense! In light of those facts about theology or broader philosophy, it would also be irrational and hypocritical for Christians to oppose homosexual marriages while turning away from unbiblical remarriage. Unfortunately, stereotypes and other assumptions have resulted in biases against homosexuals that treat their actual sins, if they live out their desires in certain says, as worse than they are. The church is in error as long as it tolerates some marriage-related sins as it selectively condemns others. It would seem to be erroneous to approve of homosexual marriages given that the Bible opposes homosexual intercourse, but consistency is crucial. Approving of or not caring about other marital sins at the same time would be hypocritical, and one can oppose homosexual practice while still getting to know homosexual couples and even attending church with them. If more Christians cared about truths about marriage in general, they would not only not hate homosexuals by default and single them out for opposition, but they would care even more about things like abusive marriages, including those where wives physically or sexually abuse their husbands. Consistency of ideas is a logical prerequisite to those ideas even being possibly true, so a true inconsistency disproves a concept. On the level of belief, inconsistency reveals insincerity or a lack of thoroughness. Conservative Christians, out of inconsistency in beliefs, sometimes even embrace outright contradictory, incompatible beliefs. Tradition is irrelevant to truth and incapable of proving or even supporting ideas, and they are so enamored with personal preferences that became traditions that they have trouble philosophically knowing their left hand from their right hand.