God and Sex

[kerry]

Given the fact that Colorado is a battleground in the marriage wars, I've been thinking and reading about marriage and sex a lot recently. It has occurred to me that in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, God does a lot of things that humans do. God creates, loves, thinks, knows,eats, breathes, sees, hears, is angry, jealous, benevolent, longsuffering, just, etc. But one thing God does not do is sex. Can anyone think of any exception to this? I suppose one could argue that God had a son and this seems to imply a sexual relationship between God and a woman, but the emergence of the idea of the virgin birth could be explained as a direct attempt to avoid this implication.

What are the cultural implications of an asexual God? Would we be better off with a sexual God? Why invent an asexual God to begin with?

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

Given the fact that Colorado is a battleground in the marriage wars, I've been thinking and reading about marriage and sex a lot recently. It has occurred to me that in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, God does a lot of things that humans do. God creates, loves, thinks, knows,eats, breathes, sees, hears, is angry, jealous, benevolent, longsuffering, just, etc. But one thing God does not do is sex. Can anyone think of any exception to this? I suppose one could argue that God had a son and this seems to imply a sexual relationship between God and a woman, but the emergence of the idea of the virgin birth could be explained as a direct attempt to avoid this implication.

What are the cultural implications of an asexual God? Would we be better off with a sexual God? Why invent an asexual God to begin with?

Now you're on something that I had never thought about in detail.

The Abrahamic religions have asexual God but many other religions do not, I'm thinking that maybe asexuality and monotheism are somehow related?

Also, I dimly recall some argument that the early Hebrews (would that be proto-Hebrews?) were polytheistic (read the first few chapters of Genesis and note that use fo first person plural in God's self-reference) and that the Astarte cults were a different branch that shares the same root.

B

[kerry]

There's got to be something about the change to a male God since goddesses were associated with fertility and sex.
But how did male gods become asexual? Is it simply a matter of projecting sexuality on to women? On that face of it, it would seem that if a culture was interested in downplaying sexuality, that a God without any human qualities at all might be a better alternative.

It makes me think that Feuerbach has negative consequences for humanism. If God is humanity projected outward and wholeness is to be found by regaining those qualities for humanity, then regaining the qualities of Jahweh, Allah or the Trinity is going to produce a very strange human.

[sixto]

It might be a matter of purpose. Sex is a facility provided so creation can procreate. The creator as such doesn't need to procreate.

The gender of God is another matter. I've always thought it to be irrelevant. I mean I'm guessing the roots of God being male and the term 'father' are cultural and linguistic... as in someone picked a pronoun for the heck of it and it stuck.

Sixto

[kitchenrat]

if you can fart an entire universe out of your invisible *******, who needs sex?

[BENZ-LGB]

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

Given the fact that Colorado is a battleground in the marriage wars, I've been thinking and reading about marriage and sex a lot recently. It has occurred to me that in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, God does a lot of things that humans do. God creates, loves, thinks, knows,eats, breathes, sees, hears, is angry, jealous, benevolent, longsuffering, just, etc. But one thing God does not do is sex. Can anyone think of any exception to this? I suppose one could argue that God had a son and this seems to imply a sexual relationship between God and a woman, but the emergence of the idea of the virgin birth could be explained as a direct attempt to avoid this implication.

What are the cultural implications of an asexual God? Would we be better off with a sexual God? Why invent an asexual God to begin with?

Oh boy...religion and sex, in one thread.

Even if the Christian God is asexual, he obviously did not mean for his creation to be asexual. Let's face it, sex feels good. If sex was meant for procreation only (as some have suggested), and not for recreation, then it wouldn't be so much fun.

There is even evidence that suggests that some of the "higher" order animals, such as dolphins, may also enjoy recreational sex.

So, if God is indeed asexual, he is missing out on some of the best features of his own creation.

[sixto]

That kind of enjoyment presupposes that you have a body or some physical aspect to your being. It could well be that at that level of existence the most you can enjoy, in terms mortals understand anyway, is a good joke.

Sixto

[sixto]

Come to think of it, didn't Greek gods have to assume a mortal form when they came down from Olympus?

Sixto

[kerry]

Maybe God isn't asexual after all. Sex, particularly with males, is often about power. So is the omnipotence of monotheism is just a variation of sexual power. Is God's power over the universe and us a disguised sexual act which functions mainly at the subconscious level?

[BENZ-LGB]

Originally Posted by sixto

That kind of enjoyment presupposes that you have a body or some physical aspect to your being. It could well be that at that level of existence the most you can enjoy, in terms mortals understand anyway, is a good joke.

Sixto

Well, then God must be having a rip roaring time...After all, he created us.

Talk about a sense of humor.

Incidentally, I am using the generic "he" when referring to God. I am making no representation as to God's gender, if any.

I think that in Greek mythology gods assumed human form (or animal form, I think I remember Zeus as a swan and/or as a bull in other to have sex with some unsuspecting maiden) so as to either fool humans into having sex or to hide their own form. I think that Greek and Roman gods were quite capable of having sex without having to change form (assuming they wanted to).

[MS Fowler]

What are the cultural implications of an asexual God? Would we be better off with a sexual God? Why invent an asexual God to begin with?[/QUOTE]


Indeed, why invent any God at all?
Either there is a God Who Is There, ( really) and He has revealed Himself to us, or it is all an invention of human imagination.

[GermanStar]

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Indeed, why invent any God at all?
Either there is a God Who Is There, ( really) and He has revealed Himself to us, or it is all an invention of human imagination.

Day, time and channel -- I'll be happy to tune in.

[kerry]

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

What are the cultural implications of an asexual God? Would we be better off with a sexual God? Why invent an asexual God to begin with?

Indeed, why invent any God at all?
Either there is a God Who Is There, ( really) and He has revealed Himself to us, or it is all an invention of human imagination.[/QUOTE]

Even if God reveals Godself to us, it will have to be in a language. Since languages are human inventions, God's revelation will have to be a human invention, at least to that degree.
Why does the Christian God have a son but not a wife? Could God have had a daughter instead of a son? What would have been the implications? Would God have become sexual if Jesus was a woman? Could a woman have died for our sins?

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

...If sex was meant for procreation only (as some have suggested), and not for recreation, then it wouldn't be so much fun....

I believe that's backward. Sex has an interest and reward separate in time from procreation. If that were not so: If every time one had an orgasm a baby popped out there'd be a lot fewer orgasms in the world and therefore, a lot less recreational sex going on. The more removed the pleasure is from birthing then the more likely unprotected recreational sex will occur and also more likely that procreation will occur.

[GermanStar]

Originally Posted by Botnst

I believe that's backward.

Sex is almost entirely recreational. To assume otherwise implies an innate knowledge of the workings of procreation.