Human Sexuality and the Image of God: Text and Context

Three passages in Genesis are of particular relevance to a discussion of human sexuality and the image of God: Gen 1:26-28; 4:1; and 5:1-3. Below the jump, text, translation, and discussion.

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים
נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם
בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ
וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם
וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם
וּבַבְּהֵמָה <וּבְכָל־הָאָרֶץ> וּבְכָל־הָרֶמֶשׂ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל־הָאָרֶץ׃

וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם
בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם    אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ
זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה       בָּרָא אֹתָם׃

וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹהִים
פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ
וּמִלְאוּ אֶת־הָאָרֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁהָ
וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם
וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם
וּבְכָל־חַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל־הָאָרֶץ׃

God said,
“Let us make man
in our image, after our likeness,
to hold sway over sea’s fish,
sky’s fowl,
and cattle <and all land> and all crawling things that crawl on land.”

God formed man in his image;
in the divine image     he formed him;
male and female   he formed them.

God blessed them and God said to them,
“Be fruitful and multiply;
fill the land, subdue it,
hold sway over sea’s fish
sky’s fowl,
and every creature that crawls on land.” (Gen 1:26-28)

For the phrase in brackets, go here.

אלהים “God” in Gen 1 is all about (1) creating a context for life and (2) bringing forth that life. Deus faber, God is the maker of the biosphere and all bios therein. (1) = Gen 1:1-10; (2) = 1:11-31. Gen 1 is a cosmological treatise with a biological focus.

In Gen 1:28, chiastically (in reverse order), tasks analogical to those undertaken by God are assigned to those created in the image of God. Humankind is like God in precisely two ways: by (2′) generating life (be fruitful and multiply); and by (1′) creating a context favorable to that life (subdue one’s habitat and hold sway over the creatures in one’s habitat).

The combination sets man apart from other creatures. The greater and lesser lights hold sway over particular domains (Gen 1:17-18), but are not fruitful and do not multiply. Conversely, other creatures are given the capacity to replicate “according to their kind” and fill the habitat assigned to them, but humankind alone is authorized to exercise authority on behalf of and over other creatures in their domain of existence.

The exercise of dominion is understood throughout biblical literature as a vehicle of salvation, wholeness, and healing. If dominion is not exercised with the interests of all concerned in mind, it is considered a travesty and perversion of itself.

In the first place, therefore, humanity is in the image of God precisely insofar as humanity consists of sexual beings – male and female he created them. The sexual male-and-femaleness of humanity – the collaborative complementarity of the genders - is the means by which humanity imitates God. In that complementarity, very specifically, in sexual coupling, the generation of new life is given.

וְהָאָדָם יָדַע אֶת־חַוָּה אִשְׁתּוֹ
וַתַּהַר וַתֵּלֶד אֶת־קַיִן
וַתֹּאמֶר קָנִיתִי אִישׁ אֶת־יְהוָה׃

Mr. Clayboy [Adam] was familiar with Genetrix [Eve] his אשה [woman].
She became big and bore Got [Cain].
She remarked, “I got a איש [man] with יהוה’s help.” (Gen 4:1)

The above translation is playful but then, the source text properly understood is rich in word-play. Eve celebrates her procreative role and attributes her ability to have a man to יהוה, even after יהוה laid a curse on her and on Adam.

God is also a procreator in biblical idiom. He  "has" or “gets” (קנה) land and sky (Gen 14:19-22): the same verb as in Gen 4:1. God is also said to have labored forth (חולל) land and mountains (Ps 90:2). Like unto God, the genitor and laborer-forth of land and sky, Eve is the genetrix and laborer-forth of human life.

זֶה סֵפֶר תּוֹלְדֹת אָדָם
בְּיוֹם בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם
בִּדְמוּת אֱלֹהִים עָשָׂה אֹתוֹ׃
זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם

וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם
וַיִּקְרָא אֶת־שְׁמָם אָדָם
בְּיוֹם הִבָּרְאָם׃

וַיְחִי אָדָם שְׁלֹשִׁים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה
וַיּוֹלֶד בִּדְמוּתוֹ כְּצַלְמוֹ
וַיִּקְרָא אֶת־שְׁמוֹ שֵׁת׃

The following is a genealogical tree of "Clay" 
When God formed "Clay,"
he made him in the divine image;
male and female   he formed them.

He blessed them and named them “Clay”
when they were formed.

"Clay," at 130 years of age,
begot in his image, after his likeness,
and named him “Seth.” (Gen 5:1-3)

It is not just the likeness of Adam and Eve that is spread throughout the domain of which the two are co-regents. It is the likeness and image of God. 

Gen 1:1-2:3 is the genealogy of the heavens and the earth (2:4a). Gen 5:1-32 is a genealogical account of Clayboy/ Adam. The entire sweep of human history is the story of Adam’s genealogy, which is, at the same time, the genealogy of God (Luke 3:38).  

The above remarks are indebted to recent contributions by Paul Niskanen and Terence Fretheim. However, I think Niskanen tries too hard in his article to wring meaning out of minor textual details. I do not follow him on that score.

Fretheim’s observations dovetail with those of Niskanen on several counts. For Fretheim, the imaging of God, its essence and purpose, is fleshed out in “the God-given charge to human beings in Gen 1:28: to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, have dominion, and subdue the earth” (2008: 20). But Fretheim makes assertions on behalf of the biblical text that do not stand up to scrutiny. For example: “Genesis 1 democratizes the understanding of image so that, in exercising their God-given powers, all human hierarchies are to be set aside (a move not welcomed by those in power!)” (2008: 20). On the contrary, human hierarchies are not set aside in the book of Genesis. They are contextualized.

For further discussion of Genesis 1 and the topic of this post, go here and here, respectively.

Bibliography

Terence Fretheim, “Image of God,” New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols.; ed. Katharine Doob Sakenfeld et al.; Nashville: Abingdon, 2006-2009) 3: 18-21; Paul Niskanen, “The Poetics of Adam: The Creation of אדם in the Image of אלהים," JBL 129 (2009) 417-436

Comments

[Stephen Barkley]

Hi John,

I've really enjoyed this series of posts on the image of God. A couple questions came to mind:

If male-female procreation is the substance of the image of God, then is there some imago dei deficiency in those who are impotent? Sarah and Hannah come to mind as people whose deficiency was divinely repaired. What about Jesus?

If God is spoken of euphemistically as laboring to create the world, then maybe the image of God can be expressed by a community of I-Thou relationships creating together: art, literature, etc. Maybe the image of God in Jesus was expressed in his life-giving miracles where the faith of someone was united with the power of God in Christ.

I'm just thinking out loud—don't feel obligated to answer. Please keep up the thought-provoking blog.

[JohnFH]

Hi Stephen,

Fine blog you have, BTW.

There are many ways to fulfill the mandate given in Gen 2, to keep and cultivate the land, broadly understood. It is also true that Jesus's miracles are a manifestation of divine power.

But in Gen 1:28 discussed above, the focus seems to be on (1) bringing forth life and (2) adapting a God-given environment to the needs of the human community - my inadequate paraphrase of the dominion theme.

I would classify the non-biological creativity of the community of I-Thou relationships under (2). That's on the assumption that in Gen 1:1-2:3, biology is primary, with anthropology seen through that lens. If that makes any sense.

[Sue]

Are you saying that complementarity exists only in 1) bringing forth life, or 2) in adapting the environment to human needs, including art and literature, also.

[Bob MacDonald]

I agree with you that "Niskanen tries too hard in his article to wring meaning out of minor textual details." Nice way of putting it. I did enjoy the read though. I think you go too far if you insist on procreation. With respect to Jesus, for instance, being both male and female within himself is also a possible interpretation of image.

I repeat a question I have asked in a few places. Why is likeness not repeated in the making of the human? God says - let us make .. in our image according to our likeness. But though, as the in construction of the tabernacle, the poem in Gen 1 repeats verbatim several things, it does not repeat the 'according to our likeness'. Thoughts for a post? I wonder what the Rabbis made of this.

[Doug Chaplin]

Funny, this clayboy doesn't remember that woman

[JohnFH]

Doug,

So you're saying that you didn't have sex with that woman? We've heard that before.

Bob,

I think the text insists on procreation, but I wouldn't understand that rigidly, if that's what you mean. Let's say I'm a priest with the charism of celibacy. Am I unable to image God per Gen 1:28 because I myself am not a procreator? It does not follow.

I will image God by helping to positively shape the environment for those who are procreated by others. I will continue to see procreation, as a process and in terms of outcome, as a blessed thing which images God's own creativity, and teach the same.

As for the non-repetition of "according to his likeness" of which you speak, I wouldn't make too much of it. Note that it *is* repeated in Gen 5, but now Adam is the subject. That's easy to explain: it strengthens the echoing effect with respect to Gen 1.

Sue,

The complementarity of which Gen 1 speaks is biological - hence the words "male and female."

As far as complementarity in terms of default expectations with respect to roles and hierarchy within the marriage bond, or the man as hunter and the women as weaver, one has to look elsewhere in Scripture for traces of such things. Default expectations on such matters vary over time and space within the biblical literature and beyond. In the Bible, there is also considerable continuity in terms of a shared core of default expectations.

[Sue]

I don't want to be obtuse but I could have sworn that most people understand Ex. 35 as saying that the men were weavers. And both men and women were shepherds, and not all men were hunters.

Not that there is any point to my comment, so don't go looking for one. But I puzzle long and hard over some of this. While I certainly believe men are different from women (other than anatomically), I don't see this represented in scripture.

I have no theory to suggest, but I was wondering if some day you will express a view on this. Do you think that other than biologically, the scripture says anything at all about gender complementarity? I just haven't seen a verse which immplies this.

[JohnFH]

The Bible is full of texts which imply gender-based cultural complementaries. Just think of all the default complementation implied by texts like Proverbs 31 and 1 Tim 5:14.

Every human culture has gender-based cultural complementaries. Some of them are rigidly enforced. Most allow for exceptions "that prove the rule."

A woman in most cultures is not allowed to perform certain combat duties; she may - or may not - be allowed to be a commander, and then one must distinguish between charisma-based leaders like Deborah, and office-based leaders.

Innovation in gender complementation occurs when tipping points are reached, and a particular occupation is associated with one gender even if it once was associated with the other. The example that comes to mind is the veterinary profession. It once was a virtually all-male profession. It is fast becoming an all-female profession.

Other gender associations are more stable, such as with respect to nurses and elementary school teachers, or truck drivers and (front-line) firefighters.

Cultural gender complementation used to be, and often still is, fairly cut and dried, but the principle of individual choice - irrespective of default conventions - is highly valued in modernity.

The effects of the fact that everyone is expected to reinvent themselves in terms of complementation, that everything is negotiable, are both good and bad. That's a long story.

A corpus of literature in the Bible in which gender complementarities are assumed and also enforced is in law. Law in the Bible, as elsewhere the world over until very recently, has a patriarchal cast by and large, though various threads of a counter-tendency are also visible.

Note that it is, from an anthropological point of view, inappropriate to suggest that gender complementation is not instantiated simply because the association of spindles and whorls with a household economy which was the exclusive domain of women co-existed with other segments of the weaving economy in which men did the weaving. I hope this is clear.

In short, what a man does and what a women does is a legally and culturally constrained quantity in all societies. In specific cases, it is also a religiously constrained quantity. In pre-modern times, of course, the three spheres just mentioned overlapped to a greater degree than they do in a few secularized societies today.

The downsides of secularization have been explored by some anthropologists. Mary Douglas for example.

We have traveled very far from Gen 1:1-2:3, the focus of which, I have been arguing, is biological, not cultural. On the other hand, male and female are co-regents in Gen 1:28 in terms of subduing their habitat for the sake of the children they procreate.

[Bob MacDonald]

Did you really post this comment? There is a lot of verbal stuff there. I didn't see any illumination. It's not where I am or where I go. Bishop Stephen Neill some many years ago said that sexuality starts with the recognition that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit comes to us by faith in that Bridegroom of blood who gave himself for us. In him we are made whole, individually and corporately.

[JohnFH]

Hi Bob,

No, I did not post that comment. It's now deleted. Rather often, I'm afraid, commenters are really advertisers of a product of some kind, or a pet peeve to air. It gets confusing when they post as "John." Sorry I didn't catch it right away.

Stephen Neill speaks wisely from a Christian point of view. The next question: is it possible to integrate the particular emphases and insights of the Genesis narrative into the overall framework Neill proposes? I have no doubt that it is.

But Christianity, though somewhat less than Buddhism and Hinduism, has a long history of trying to overcome biology and sexuality in a variety of ways. When this becomes the ideal for the truly spiritual, the outcome in my opinion is on balance negative.

[Breaker Morant 5]

One of the points that Stephen Barkley brought up in an earlier post peaked my interest. If procreation comes from the image of god, what is the reason for couples who are unable to bear children? ‘God blessed them and God said to them,“Be fruitful and multiply…”’ God makes it clear that procreation is one of the most important parts of human life. Is this meant to be a test of faith for those who are unable to give life?
After reading this article I now wonder how overpopulation and its effects fit in with God’s image. Does the importance of reproducing change when Earth’s resources become sparse and pollution becomes more and more of a problem as a result of too much reproducing? Or maybe these problems are just a product of human’s mistakes-not overpopulation. This was just something that popped into my head as I read.

[JohnFH]

Very good questions, Breaker Morant 5.

Religious traditions handle the question about people who cannot or choose not to bear children in various ways.

For example, it is not that unusual and in fact typical of some forms of Christianity to encourage the choice of not having children of one's own among a few, and to encourage those for whom it is not a choice to embrace it as a mission.

What kind of mission? That of serving the common good and the good of the children of others in particular. So you have schools and hospitals staffed by nuns and priests and other people with fewer or non-existent obligations vis-a-vis children of their own.

On this view, God blesses the task of creating a place of one's own on earth designed to be enjoyed by generations upon generations. One can be a full participant in that project without necessarily doing any of the biological generating.

For the rest, it seems to me that recent trends make the risk of a population extremely unlikely.

There is plenty of recent research that shows that "the population bomb" is a false problem. According to this research, given a host of co-efficients in the realm of cultural and economic change, there is a self-correcting mechanism at work in longer term demographic trends. In fact, the current trend is in the direction of sub-replacement fertility, with 42% of the world's population already in this category.

In light of this, how many children a couple has in not in need of regulation. Least of all in the developed West and East. If a particular faith promotes large families, no harm is done in the sense of triggering a population explosion.

Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore, most of Western Europe, Israel, Canada, Russia, and Australia, even China, already wish or will soon begin to wish that the biblical mandate "be fertile and increase" was written on the hearts of their citizens.

That said, one might still argue that a thinning of the current population is a good thing. Be my guest. My argument is driven by facts but also by felt experiences, an affirmative reading of mandates in the book of Genesis, and most of all, on a particular understanding of the shape and ambition of love exchanged.

Why do we have children? From a Christian point of view, Thomas Dalrymple says it well:

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Why-We-Have-Children-Timothy-Dalrymple-01-26-2011.html

[True Grit 3]

I had the same question as "Breaker Morant 5", what about people that can't have children? Or what about people that don't want to, will God think of those people differently, or punish them in some way? I don't think this should be a test of faith, that just doesn't seem right.

[shawshank redemption 5]

"The sexual male-and-femaleness of humanity – the complementarity of the genders - is the means by which humanity imitates God. In that complementarity, very specifically, in sexual coupling, the generation of new life is given."

I completely agree with this statement, but I also am very accepting of other sexualities. It's sort of taboo when talking about religion to imply that there is any right sexuality but heterosexual, but I truly believe God created the universe and everything in it, every person and every idea. I understand that the Lord created men and women to procreate, but God also created love and I believe he accepts all love between human beings. It's true, homosexual couples cannot have children, but they can adopt children who need homes. They cannot get married, which I still disagree with, but they can be joined in union. They can enjoy life with a significant other and isn't happiness in life the most important thing?
My mother is a lesbian. I have a real dad who was loved by and loved my mom. People can call me a bastard because my parents were never married. people can criticize my mom for who they think she is, but people don't know our lives. My mother was sexually abused many times even before the age of 12 and she was constantly beaten by her brother. She didn't tell my grandma about the rape until she was in her early 40's because she didn't want to cause trouble. In her late teens, she started feeling more comfortable with women, but hid it because she knew homosexuality was not easily accepted. Even into her late teens and adult years, she was physically and verbally abused by men. She only reported abuse once, when her spleen was ruptured. The trauma later caused her to have a seizure while driving over the Johnson street bridge in Fond du Lac. Her car was totaled and her ankle was broken. Her whole life, she suffered and endured and hid who she was because she was afraid to be herself.
God does not want anyone to hurt or be emotionally ruined, but this is what happens when people don't accept others for who they are. It's not like homosexuals are hurting or disrupting others' lives. God loves all his children, even me for being a bastard and even my mom for being a lesbian. People can say God hates homosexuals, but I have proof the Lord loves them. My mother has had ovarian cancer three times, breast cancer, cancerous sinus polyps, seizures, ulcers, and all sorts of other ailments, but she is alive. When people ask me why I believe in God, I always say, "If God wasn't real, my mother would be dead." It's then often said that doesn't necessarily mean God is there, but He also listened when I begged Him to please let my nephew Max live through surgery. He was five days old, a month and a half early, and less than five pounds. He had kidney problems and though doctors had wanted to wait til he gained a few more pounds, they conducted emergency surgery through which my sweet boy lived. He is now a year and a half and very healthy. God loves all his children, no matter how big or small, no matter how gay or straight.

[Praying with Lior 2]

@shawshank redemption 5,

People like you are the reason I still have my faith. Among all of the hate, lies, and deceit the world seems to have in modern day, it’s sometimes hard to remember what faith and God really is about. It’s about acceptance, and more importantly it’s about unconditional love. Although God created three biological sexualities (male, female, and intersex) that does not mean there are specific guidelines to live by.

I feel like too many religious people are wary of acceptance for different social genders and it interferes with their faith. As a Social Justice- Human Rights minor, gender orientation equality is a huge part of my academic life. I am an ally of the LGTBQ community and I have several homosexual friends. A few of those friends are involved in the church and have a better concept of faith than the majority of people I know. For me, it’s difficult to understand the concept that people were created in God’s image as solely male or female. If God is an androgynous being, than ALL types of people were created in His image. Why should heterosexual couples be the sole example of raising a new generation? To say that only biological male and female individuals are able to create a new “generation” makes the concept of homosexual couples bringing up a child as sinful or not right. Yes, only biologically male and female beings together can create new life, but that does not mean same sex couples do not create the same love for their children. If love is what our faith is about, then why do we constantly debate over the insignificant detail of biological gender?

As most of us know from John 3:16-17, Jesus said “For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him.”

So why is the concept of homosexual couples still an argumentative topic if Jesus said “everyone who believes in Him will not perish.”

[JohnFH]

A variety of sexual arrangements have been stigmatized by the best known religions of the world: not just Judaism and Christianity, but Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam.

In any given faith and in any given society, a variety of sexual arrangements are privileged - most often, unions of a potentially procreative couples. A variety of other sexual patterns are marginalized - that is, they are allowed, but not encouraged. For example, serial monogamy (marriage - divorce - remarriage - redivorce) may be allowed but the laws are such that one would be crazy to do it unless one is as rich as a Hollywood celeb. A few rich people (or people who live briefly as if they were) go down this road, though very few are so brash as to suggest that they are making choices worthy of imitation. Finally, a set of sexual arrangements are criminalized, in theory if not always in practice. For example, in Australia marriage between a brother and sister (including siblings of half-blood) is not permitted and these "prohibited relationships" include relationships traced through adoption.

I have yet to meet someone who does not agree that some sexual arrangements should be illicit; the causes for argument are how long the list of arrangements to be discouraged and/or prohibited should be.

That is why Praying with Lior 2's argument will not work for most people. For example, "everyone who believes in him will not perish," but not the preacher and practitioner of man-boy relationships.

Sex with children is outlawed in all countries, though only in theory; the demand for sex with children is quite high, and the economies of some countries depend heavily on receipts from sex with children.

A related point is that an individual Buddhist or Christian may very well feel that homoerotic love is not incompatible with the religion of reference. In this country, there is freedom of speech and everyone is entitled to their own opinions (don't even try free speech in China or Saudi Arabia, unless you want to be a martyr). But that doesn't change the fact that for the Dalai Lama (the supreme authority in a denomination of Buddhism), homoerotic love is forbidden, full stop, to Buddhists. In the same way, according to the Pope (the supreme authority for much of Christianity, the Catholic Church), people with same-sex orientation are to be treated with love and respect, but encouraged to abstain from sexual activity in that it is understood to be against nature. In fact, after all the scandals, a man of homosexual orientation, even if he has no history of acting on that orientation, is not permitted to be a priest (a heterosexual priest is also not allowed to act on his orientation).

Finally, to stick to the example SR 5 and PwL 2 are interested in, a liberal case against same-sex marriage has also been made. For example:

http://cslr.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/media/PDFs/Op-Ed_Pieces/Browning.Liberal_Case_Against_Same_Sex_Marriage.3.24.200.pdf

Sexuality and the way sexuality is constructed stand at the intersection of biology, culture, and social mores. It is important to reflect on these questions without disrespecting traditional religious viewpoints and without disrespecting those who, for whatever reason, cannot accept traditional religious viewpoints. This debate is a true test of civility on the part of all concerned.

[Karen Knudson]

This article was very interesting to me and also caused me to question aspects of human life. Like True Grit 3 and Breaker Morant 5, I also had the question immediately after reading about people who cannot bear children. Does God or a “supreme being” automatically damn them? After all it is not their fault if they can’t have kids. And for those who do not want children, they should be entitled to their own opinion on children and they should be able to decide for themselves whether they want to have kids. And what about people who have children unfaithfully? Or what about the people that could die if they have kids or have severe health problems? By the bible saying “be fruitful and multiply” does that mean that everyone should? And at what time should they have children? In today’s society teen pregnancy is so prevalent but how many of those teens are really ready to multiply and take on the responsibility of having a family. So not everyone should have to multiply the land and people should not be judged by God for making that choice for themselves.

[JohnFH]

Hi Karen,

Thank you for pushing back on the topic of this thread. Your honesty and boldness are refreshing.

You ask,

"Does God or a 'supreme being' automatically damn them?"

Can I ask what leads you to ask such a question?

So far as I know, there is no evidence, either from the Bible or from the two faiths based on the Bible, Judaism and Christianity, that anyone has ever thought that this text implied that it was someone's fault if they can't have kids.

If you know of evidence, and can cite it, then we have a basis for discussion; otherwise, you are presenting what is known as a "straw man" argument.

That said, I think I see where you want to go with things. You don't think it's right for anyone in the name of God to assign an overall purpose to life that might conflict with your choice, or someone else's choice, not to have children.

If I misunderstand your drift, let me know.

I would say this to begin with. Gen 1:26-28 did not have in mind women or men who, though someone raised them, had no plans to raise others.

Gen 1:26-28 is in harmony with village culture, according to the maxim, it takes a village to raise a child. The cultural imperative this text embodies was felt and felt deeply in the community to which it was addressed.

The added value is that altruism for the sake of the larger community is blessed in the text. The rightness and goodness of said altruism are attributed to the creator of all biological life.

Biologists have proven that we are programmed as a species to reproduce and raise children. So this is an instance in which nature and religion are in harmony. There are many examples of such harmony.

Gen 1:26-28 wants to be affirming of a pattern of instinct and desire which unites the human species with other biological species. The parallelism is explicit in Gen 1.

There are philosophies of life on tap in the world today, particularly in the United States, in which individualism is taken to great extremes and is, among other things, a proven reason for material wealth multiplication. Ayn Rand for example understood this well, and embraced it. Such philosophies put a near total emphasis on self-realization and individual autonomy.

If that is what you are after in life, I would think that you would find any and every religion very confining. Religions are by definition enormous gift *exchanges* - collective projects of the first order. They are not in the least based on the principle of every man for himself - or every woman for herself.

Universal religions make room for people who want to be individuals by binding them to ascetic practices and giving them a purpose in the larger scheme of things.

Not just Christianity, but Hinduism and Buddhism are famous for coopting the idealism and loneliness of individuals for a cause. Think Spiderman, if you are looking for an entry into the psychology of this.

Feel free to push back against Judaism and Christianity further on this score, if you find it worthwhile.

[Nell 5]

I for one am not against homosexuality. I believe that people have the right to love who they want to love, and marry who they want to marry. I don’t think that other people have the right to tell others who they can and can’t love. My religion is now starting to become more accepting of homosexuals in the church; this is starting to cause conflict amongst members. A family that was very involved in the church actually left our congregation because of this. I think that being homosexual is slowly becoming more accepted in today’s society. But, like anything, there will always be the people who stick to the old ways and traditions of from when they were growing up.

[JohnFH]

Nell 5,

The question of gay unions poses a number of problems for Jews and Christians who consider the Bible and a tradition of interpretation of the Bible central to who they are. The subject matter merits a session of its own.

However, I doubt very much that you believe that people have a right to love who they want to love. My guess - I could be wrong - is that you are against a mother marrying her son, a sister her brother, a man three wives, a 50 year old an 8 year old. Most people, in a culture like ours with a Jewish and Christian heritage, are against these things. People of other cultures, not necessarily.

I also would guess that you don't believe necrophiliacs - this is a condition, perhaps inborn, of a small but fairly constant percentage of the population - have a right to have sex with corpses. Even if you are not a member of PETA, I assume you have issues with a human being raping an animal - there is no other way to describe it, it seems to me.

In short, individuals and societies think of sexuality and love, not as dimensions of life where anything goes, but dimensions of life in the concepts of right and wrong apply. The only question is: to what exactly.

Does that make sense?

[TheTrumanShow1]

The thing that interests me the most in this article is that in the first translation it says that "God said, let us make man..." I'm very curious as to how the word "us" was translated into this, and who else it might be refering to, since God alone made humans, who would he have consulted or had help from? I might be reading the passage wrong, but I don't think I have realized God ever use the word us to describe anything he did. Was this a connection to the Holy Spirit or perhaps a foreshadow to something else. I also agree with the commented made above on what was said by Karen. God has created every being in a particular way for a reason, so even if they end up not being able to have kids, doesn't mean its their fault or that they did anything wrong. Furthermore God gives each person a calling or a vocation, and some of those entail being single for their whole life especially in the religious life and so those people are not able to be fruitful and multiply and yet God still loves them exactly the same as He would with someone who has kids. So I am curious as to if there is reason for any other interpretation?

[The Truman Show 5]

My thoughts on the Nell 5 post,

Homosexuality my be seen as an abomination in the religious community, but who are we to judge? Isn’t the judgement decided by the Lord? I think people are for to hasty to try and “convert” others into what they deem is holy. As I observe the debate between homosexuality and heterosexuality, all I ever hear is “God is going to judge you” , “ The Bible says”. What I think is that people should not judge you, but love you as you are. Who are we to say one man can’t marry another man. We are all “God’s children” and from I have read, he loves us.

[True Grit 1]

From what The Truman Show 1 said about how some people can not have kids because they just can't and that it does not mean they are being punish or they are being discipline. Everyone has a gift from God and that gift from God is something special. You do not need to go compare to others or be jealous that you do not have this but the other do. For example if you want kids but at the end you just can't have any but others around you have kids. It does not mean that you are punish, it is just the gift that God gave you. Kids are a miracle to everyone's life and how they are so special to others. But without having a kid it does not mean you are not blessed by God because you do not have a kid. People are blessed by God in many different ways. From what I think about people that are gay and lesbian I think it is alright to be like that. I mean you were born to be that way you did not have a choice to become what you want. I think God will see that that person is born like that and can not do much but I'm pretty sure God wont punish anybody for marrying the same gender. Even though his bible stated a quote saying something about marrying the same gender.

[Pulp Fiction 1]

Genesis is a very good chapter to get a real understanding of creation. Although there are many different beliefs, genesis makes it more clear (at least for me). The way it is put with the words "us" you can debate because who did God have help from, but then again maybe that's just how the book was written. There are things that are debatable and at the same time still agreeable. The image of God is a clear as they can put it i believe because it's possible to nit-pick things all day, but then again its just the general idea of God and his creations that should fascinate with his powers/sacrifice.

[Nell 5]

I like this article. In a way, it makes sense to say that Adam was created in God's image and therefore we are all born in the image of God. Also, the way this article says that the sweep of human history is the geanology of Adam but is also a geanology of God as well. It makes a tremendous of sense to put it that way. I agree with you Pulp Fiction 1 on your take on how good of a chapter Genesis is in terms of understanding creation. Like they say, in order to know a means to end, you must first know the beginning; be it the beginning of a story, a life or just the beginning of all life in general.

[The Mission 2]

To clear up some confusion for you, Pulp Fiction 1, the reason the Bible uses the words “us” or “our” when God speaks is because of the concept of the Trinity. The Trinity is a very hard concept to understand. The Bible only refers to one true God, but God has three different persons in Himself: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. An example of the Trinity can be seen at Jesus’ baptism in Matthew 3:13-17. The Spirit of God is God the Holy Spirit, the voice from heaven is God the Father, and Jesus is God the Son. Some may suggest that these three persons are separate Gods, however, in John 14:1-14 Jesus explains to His disciples that He and The Father are one. In a similar way in the following passages Jesus explains how the Advocate (God the Holy Spirit) comes from the Father and from Himself, thus the meaning of the Trinity (Three in One) is supported. Also God’s image may not mean that we necessarily look like God. Since God has been seen in countless shapes throughout the Bible, we cannot conclude that God in His true form is human. Instead God’s image can be seen as characteristics like righteousness and holiness (Ephesians 4:24) or knowledge (Colossians 3:10).

[Dead Man Walking 6]

Only males and females being together can create children, but in my opinion, same sex couples still can give love and care for their children as well. The statement, “The sexual male and femaleness of humanity – the complementarity of the genders- is the means by which humanity imitates God. In that complementarity, very specifically, in sexual coupling, the generation of new life is given,” is a true statement in many ways, but I am also accepting of other sexualities. I think there is no wrong with that. God creates the land and the sky to start a life, Adam and Eve to generate people, love being between people to share their thoughts with each other. So, acceptance or ignorance of the variety of sexual arrangements is just about how a person views. Yes, somehow the religious bond into that concept and it interferes with people faith. I am glad that one person from the previous comment posted the statement that Jesus said “ For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him.” Therefore, why is the concept of the homosexual couples still an argumentative issue around the world?

[The Truman Show 3]

Reading some other comments on this blog I remembered a comment I heard regarding celibacy and choosing not to have children. When a priest or a nun chooses to remain celibate it is seen in a way that they are just not effecting the lives of children they otherwise would have had, but are embracing others' children as their own. Why is it that a priest or nun who chooses such a lifestyle is held in high regard, but a same sex couple who chooses not to have children is frowned upon? I'm sure there are many same sex couples who have adopted children and raised them in a manner that would far exceed the way in which some heterosexual couples raise their children.

[True Grit 12]

The idea of inequality in this article confuses me. It seems almost as if the combination of male and female is equal to God, or is at least an imitation of God. "The sexual male-and-femaleness of humanity – the collaborative complementarity of the genders - is the means by which humanity imitates God." How then, can one explain the idea that both man a woman together are sinful? Is there something to be said of the joining together of the two genders that transcends one gender alone? Or is it simply the diversity which makes us closer to God?