Sexuality under analysis
The origin of sexuality; From God or the result of evolution? Improper sexual behavior leads to suffering
These days people attack against the Christian faith. It is because, e.g., the evolution theory and liberal theology. When people do not believe Genesis or the historicalness of gospel, they will entirely abandon Christian faith.
This text is not about investigation of history, however, but about sexuality and sexual morality. If people do not believe in creation, they might also regard biblical teaching on sexuality as old-fashioned as well. Moral is not seen as coming from God, nor do people see God as the Creator and Judge who will judge everyone based on their acts and talks. It seems our modern day resembles the situation in Israel during the period of the judges. Back then the distinction between right and wrong was also obscured:
- (Judges 17:6) In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
When analyzing sexuality, it is good to familiarize oneself with the beginning and creation. If creation is true, it cannot be overlooked when discussing this topic. That is why we will start off with what existed in the beginning and the origins of our sexuality.
WHAT ARE THE ORIGINS OF OUR SEXUALITY? Sexuality is first and foremost related to reproduction. It is the main purpose of sexuality. Reproduction mechanism can only come from either of these two sources:
• It has randomly emerged and evolved
• It was created by God
Which of the two is correct? Those with a naturalistic worldview will automatically shift towards the first alternative, but it has some insurmountable obstacles. The following factors, among others, place doubts on the feasibility of the naturalistic theory:
• How did reproduction take place before the emergence of reproductive organs? Shouldn’t they have been ready from the beginning? Sexuality and reproduction must already function from the first generation on, otherwise there won’t be any offspring, which leads to extinction.
• How could the male and female reproductive organs have developed separately from each other in different individuals? Shouldn’t that be impossible, because the evolution should have taken place at the exact same time in two different individuals?
• Different gametes of males and females is an even bigger problem, as they are compatible with each other, merge together, and form a new individual into this world. How could totally compatible gametes evolve entirely apart from each other?
• The awakening of attraction and interest between the two sexes is a mystery. How could such an intricate thing evolve from a simple original cell, which had absolutely zero sexual interest?
• Extinction would also have been a threat if the womb, birthing canal, and nutrition from the mother had not been ready from the start. In fact, all organs and phases related to reproduction should have been functional from the beginning, otherwise, life would have ended. It is so absurd to think that all this could have emerged spontaneously and on its own that there is reason to doubt whether it is possible at all.
• Breasts and mammae as well as the milk they produce secure immediate nutrition for the offspring for the following months after birth. How could this crucial aspect of survival be the result of an accident?
Above, we expressed how senseless the naturalistic theory of sexuality and reproduction is. These kinds of intricacies cannot evolve on their own from a state of some Big Bang, because they need to be functional from the start, otherwise the only outcome will be immediate extinction. (With the prerequisite that life has already existed. No one has been able to solve the mysteries of life’s origin, and none of the practical observations support the idea of self-caused existence). Much more reasonable is the teaching that all these things exist as a result of God’s creation. It is much easier to believe in creation than in self-caused existence. Creation also holds the most logical explanation to human sexuality.
The following passages relate to humans, specifically, who God created in His own image. Jesus also referred to it when He spoke about the permanence of marriage:
- (Gen 1:26,27) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
- (Matt 19:4-6) And he answered and said to them, Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall join to his wife: and they two shall be one flesh?
6 Why they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.
What can be deducted from sexuality and reproduction? If it is a feature placed in us by God, then surely, He is the one to determine what is right and wrong in that area. He can also condemn us if we refuse to follow His guidance.
Sexuality, in itself, is not a bad thing, but the following verses, and the former ones, show us the correct boundaries of sexuality between a married man and a woman. This is the original concept of creation that Jesus referred to. It would be foolish overlook these teachings and warnings. If we are eternal beings, wrong choices are a poor excuse to lose an eternal life:
- (1 Cor 6:9,10) Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
- (Hebr 13:4) Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
- (1 Cor 7:1-5) Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render to the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife to the husband.
4 The wife has not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband has not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud you not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
If we are eternal beings and what we do matters, why do most people disregard the former Bible verses?
One factor is the media and its impact. We receive many of our distorted models of sexuality through the media. It can include, pornography, promotion of premarital sex, extramarital affairs, and homosexual relationships. The media putting forth this kind of material will impact our minds and attitudes. People will adopt what they read and hear.
People involved in such activities – e.g., the spreading of pornography – should consider things from the perspective of their eternal fate. God has loved everyone, but if someone deliberately acts against Him and leads people further away from God, they will face a harsher judgment. Some might argue against this and claim the following verses to be false, but what is the justification for their interpretation? If the likelihood of these verses being true is even 10 percent, it is worth considering. Don’t be foolish; think about the possibility of eternal life:
- (Matt 18:6,7) But whoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
7 Woe to the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!
- (James 3:1) My brothers, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.
”Love works no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” (rom 13:10). As noted, some people might consider biblical teachings on sexual morality as old-fashioned. They do not think, e.g., that extramarital affairs and homosexuality are classified as wrongful acts, or that our actions will have an effect our eternity. They believe that such views are not timely anymore. They reject Christian sexual morality and God.
One trend rising from the end of the 1960s, when the so-called sexual revolution began, has been the justification of extramarital affairs and homosexual relationships with love. During earlier decades, the focus has mainly been on extramarital affairs, but lately the media has been more involved with gay couples also. Both practices were justified with love, and they still are.
This short quotation illustrates how the trend was set off at end of the 1960s. It tells how it was customary to contrast marriage and love back then:
(...) In the world of high school, those who demanded justification of sexual relationships were the ones blowing their trombones loudly. They insisted, for instance, that boys and girls should be allowed to live together in university dormitories even though they were not married.
It seemed as though the Teenager Union had been conquered by new leaders, who announced not only socialism and school democracy but also an idea of free sexual relationships.
All in all, what was new with the situation was that there were reference groups speaking about sexual questions much more openly than it had been normal in public. These groups accused the society and the church of double standards.
The tone of the conversation was to a large extent ethical. Morals were regarded as bad, and were blamed. However, a new moral was simultaneously announced, often very moralistically and intolerantly. It was discussed earlier that the sexual behavior of young people must be understood, but now some groups announced that it is right to have free sexual relationships. The institution of marriage and real genuine love were even set aside. Illegal couples were interviewed in public, as though they were some kind of heroes of a new moral standard, who had dared to rise against the morals of the bourgeois society. Homosexuals were interviewed in the same way and people demanded abortion to be legalized (....) “Love in the name of the law” was the title of a radio show in which legal marriage and true love were presented as opposites. (1)
The questions we should be asking regarding this matter are the following: what is love, what is selfishness and what is the significance of our actions. In fact, some things that have been justified with love, might actually be acts of lust and selfishness rather than love, despite the media flaunting them. We are going to inspect this through some examples. We will begin with the situation of children.
If one were to have a baby. As stated, the main purpose of sexuality is to reproduce. It might include some pleasure, but the main objective is to give birth to new individuals. These things cannot be entirely separated from each other, although it is increasingly easier with modern birth control methods.
Still, unexpected pregnancies do happen. In the cases of superficial and brief sexual affairs, it might lead to the following situations:
1. The happiest alternative is that the parents commit to each other and the child will have a stable home from birth.
2. Another alternative is the dating couple deciding to split yet keep the baby. The child will live with only one parent or he or she is put up for adoption.
3. The third alternative is abortion, which in fact, is killing a child, although some might disagree. Those people are only lying to themselves. With our modern technology, we are able to see that 8 -to 12-week-old fetuses (most abortions are carried out during this time) have the same body parts as adults and newborn babies.
Abortion has been justified, e.g., with claims of it preventing the baby from having any future suffering, but “anyone claiming this should be presented with two questions for their conscience. This is the first one: How many people in their beautiful speech mean their own future suffering, lost free time, increased efforts, and fear of surrounding opinions when talking about the baby’s suffering? This is the second question: Who can go to the gates of the world and determine who is most and least likely to suffer from the ones who enter? Who can with precision foretell someone’s future? Great personalities have come from some very difficult conditions; some have gone off the rails having had an easy life. How many Leonardo da Vincies or August Spielbergs have been destroyed by this abortion amendment!” (2)
What about childbearing and the well-being of children? Several studies have shown that children thrive best in families where the parents have a marriage-like lasting relationship. Emotionally, it is the best situation for children and socially the most economical way to raise children. Other ways are more expensive and not as good. It has also been observed that criminals often come from orphanages and single parent families (there is often no father). It is an unfortunate fact shown by the statistics.
Jos meitä pyydettäisiin suunnittelemaan järjestelmä, joka varmistaisi, että lasten perustarpeista huolehditaan, päätyisimme todennäköisesti johonkin samankaltaiseen kuin kahden vanhemman ihanne. Teoriassa tällainen rakennesuunnitelma ei ainoastaan varmista, että lapset saavat käyttöönsä kahden aikuisen ajan ja rahan, se tarjoaa myös kontrolloivan ja tasapainottavan järjestelmän, joka edistää laadukasta vanhemmuutta. Molempien vanhempien biologinen suhde lapseen lisää todennäköisyyttä, että vanhemmat pystyvät samaistumaan lapseen ja ovat valmiita tekemään uhrauksia lapsen puolesta. Se myös vähentää todennäköisyyttä, että vanhemmat käyttäisivät lasta hyväkseen. (3)
On vakuuttavasti osoitettu, että lapset eivät kukoista hyvästä fyysisestä hoidosta huolimatta, jos heitä pidetään persoonattomissa laitoksissa, ja että ero äidistä – varsinkin eräinä ajanjaksoina – vaikuttaa erittäin vahingollisesti. Jälkeenjääneisyys, välinpitämättömyys, taantuminen ja jopa kuolema ovat yleisiä laitoshoidon seurauksia, kun saatavilla ei ole riittävää äidin korviketta. (4)
When I was speaking at a certain men's camp in Hume Lake in California, I mentioned that the average father spends only three minutes of quality time with his child a day. After the meeting, one man questioned my information.
He scolded, "You preachers only say things. According to the latest research, the average father doesn't spend even three minutes daily with his children, but 35 seconds."
I believe him because he worked as a school inspector in central California. Actually, he gave me another startling statistic.
In a certain school district in California there were 483 students in special education. None of those students had a father at home.
In a certain area on the outskirts of Seattle, 61% of children live without a father.
The absence of a father is a curse nowadays. (5)
What happens when people support extramarital affairs in the name of love, or march for homosexual relationships because of love?
Frankly, it will be detrimental for children and their condition. It will lead to adults’ sexual experimentation and the breaking of ordinary couples and families (which results in an increase in societal costs). It might not be the intention of advocates supporting this cause in the name of love, but it is a direct consequence. The more the media brings up these deviant relationships, the more straining it will be on relationships and families making them break more easily. Children will become collateral damage because of adult selfishness, which they call love. (For instance, Etelä-Suomen Sanomat (a Finnish newspaper) reported (31.10.2010): Almost billion euro used in institutional care for children and youth, Problems with children experienced strong rise since early 1990s... The institutional care of one child can cost up to EUR 100,000 per year.../ Similarly, Aamulehti (a Finnish newspaper) reported (3.3.2013): Marginalized teen costs 1,8 million. Even one successful rehabilitation back into society is a huge plus.)
The following quotation illustrates how more and more children are born outside of marriage, and how societal costs have increased subsequent to families falling apart. When the so-called sexual revolution began at the end of the 1960s, only ca. 5 % of children were born outside of marriage before that. From that the numbers have only increased, divorces have become more common, and children’s well-being has diminished. If there has been progression, it has not increased the overall happiness and well-being of society. The situation has gotten worse:
More than half (53%) of first-born children were already born outside of marriage. Of all children (second and third born as well) these numbers have increased:
Children born outside of marriage:
- year 1970 percentage was 5,8 %
- year 1980 percentage was 13,1 %
- year 1990 percentage was 25,2 %
- year 2000 percentage was 39,2 %
- year 2010 percentage was 41,0 %
From all open -and married relationships the percentage of open relationships was 24 percentage (the situation in 2008). Today, approximately half of marriages end up in divorce.
From all households receiving societal support, 70 percent are single parent households. A fourth of single parents receive income support.
In 2006, 15 628 children and teens were relocated from their home by the authorities. Nearly 40 % of those relocated children come from single parent families.
…The responsibility of society increases when the parents cannot or don’t want to raise their child. More than 70 700 children and teens were clients of the child welfare social work and within the non-institutional social care support system in 2009. More than 16 000 of those children were located elsewhere from their home. In the modern social system, raising children has extended from daycare to university. In addition to society, television and games have also become new educators. (6)
Transmitted diseases and economy. Mixing love and sexuality can become costly to society. One consequence is transmitted diseases, which easily spread through sexual affairs. A disease like smallpox, Black Death or AIDS (or some new form that is not yet known) can cause massive devastation. This was the case in Africa during the last few decades and in America among homosexuals a few decades ago. AIDS wreaked havoc and the working aged lost their health and lives. These diseases are not harmless, as they can be a great detriment to society and to its economy. Moreover, the medical expenses to treat these illnesses are expensive possibly racking up to thousands of euros.
(Abortion is kind of the same. Finland, e.g., is lacking ca. half a million of its population due to abortions, which has distorted the population profile. It may be one factor in our current debt crisis. When there is only a small number of working taxpayers, we cannot afford to pay pensions and societal costs. It has been paid with debt money.)
Taking note of the truth. As stated, people have defended extramarital affairs and homosexual relationships in the name of love. People march for them and create propaganda. They claim that it is close-minded to not support these causes.
What really matters is the truth, however. If it is true that we are eternal beings and our actions affect our fate and the fate of others, then real love is to act according to that truth. Even if some people claimed to be all about love, it would not take them far if they keep neglecting the truth and eternity. We are going to look at a few related passages. The last passages are only concerned with salvation of the soul:
- (Gal 5:7,8) You did run well; who did hinder you that you should not obey the truth?
8 This persuasion comes not of him that calls you.
- (1 Tim 2:3,4) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
- (Matt 16:25,26) For whoever will save his life shall lose it: and whoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
1. Matti Joensuu: avoliitto, avioliitto, perhe, p. 12,13
2. Michael Harry, Ulla Järvilehto, Markus J. Viljanen: Anna lapsen elää
3. Sara McLanahan & Gary Sandefur: Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, p. 38
4. Margaret Mead: Some Theoretical Considerations on the Problem of Mother-Child Separation, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, vol. 24, 1954, p. 474
5. Edwin Louis Cole: Miehuuden haaste, p. 104
6. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 3, Alusta viimeiseen aikaan, p. 193,194
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!