Basic HTML Version
those differences.
No Rlght or Wrong?
Naturally, the educators and ex–
perts who assume sex is the result
of evolution do not speak in terms
of specific moral laws regulating
the use of sex. They presume
mankind is merely a higher form of
animal life, except that humans are
more intelligent and therefore
should be able to utilize sex in a
"responsible" way.
That's as near as they can come
to formulating a comprehensive
and workable guideline
Toda''•
duct is regulated by whim and
caprice. Adolescents-and , in–
creasingly, preadolescents- freely
and unashamedly indulge in sexual
play.
Unfortunately, traditional Chris–
tianity
has
been of little help in the
matter. Far from speaking with a
united voice, sorne theologians
branded all sex as only tolerable;
they bave had to endorse it, but in
marriage only; sorne limit it solely
for the purpose of having children;
sorne few modern and ancient reli–
gious spokesmen said it's permissi-
ble outside of wedlock.
There have even been
for sexual conduct. Af–
ter all, to clearly define
right as opposed to
wrong, sexually speak–
ing, would be to risk
offending sorne in
one's audience when it
comes to personal pref–
erences or .. fife–
styles.!'
...,.,
1•
sorne who have urged
followers to participate
in unrestrained com–
munal sexual activ–
ity-all in the name of
religion.
Ntiii'IIIMI wlfh
••·
lf'•
In
U..
,.,..
and
......
lf'•
aOHIIfullfed
In
.,.
.,..
What confusion! No
wonder so many of the
educated of the world
bave laid aside what
tbey bave assumed to
be Christianity- and
consequentl y the
Bible- and sought to
explain biological real–
ity by means of what
they consider to be the
only alternatives: phi–
losophy or evolutionary
science, as inadequate
as they are.
But wbat does "re–
sponsible" mean? Re–
sponsible to whom? To
God? No, for God and
the Bible are left out of
the picture so as not to
offend anybody's per–
sonal beliefs concern–
ing religion.
Mfl
,..,.__ "
_.,,.
Responsible, then, to
other humans? The
concept sounds lofty
but is unworkable and
undependable as a
guideline because morally most
people Jet themselves be responsi–
ble to other people only to the ex–
tent that they themselves stand to
tangibly benefit from the arrange–
ment. When you get down to it, to
prescribe no more than that moral
conduct be "responsible" basically
means that each individual is free
to make up bis or her own mind
concerning morality.
The fruits of this kind of think–
ing are everywhere evident.
Sex crimes are rampant . The
statistics would be far worse than
they are were it not that so many
crimes go unreported and that so
many acts of sexual misconduct are
not even categorized as crimes like
they truly deserve to be.
People in too many cases are be–
having themselves in a manner un–
becoming to animals. Sexual con-
16
But wait! Just be–
cause traditional
Christianity has ·erred in compre–
hending the Bible, Jet us not make
the mistake of overlooking that it is
God's handbook of instruction
about life, including sex, to the
Creator's highest physical creation:
mankind. Science does not know
that. Religion has not understood
what that means.
ln the Bible we discover that
sexual differences did not evolve.
God created sex. And the Bible
explains why.
The Inventor of Sex
The Bible reveals that God created
the first human beings. They were
naked and not ashamed. God was
pleased with bis handiwork.
But God planned to greatly in–
crease the number of human beings
on earth. To accomplish this he
could have created each additional
one with bis own hands just as be
had created Adam and Eve, giving
to them the breath of life (Gen.
2:7). It would have taken time, but
God has plenty of time.
Or, in a less personalized way,
could the Creator not have merely
commanded, so great is bis power,
and the elements themselves would
obediently have come togetber,
producing humans as they had so
recently yielded plants, animals,
fish and fowl (Gen. 1:11, 20, 24)?
Or, why not have each person
capable of producing a seed or an
egg that did not need fertilization?
Out of it would develop a tiny hu–
man that would grow into an adult.
Nature is not lacking in exam–
ples to show that reproduction is
possible without sex.
But such is not the way God
designed human beings or, for that
matter, most living tbings. We can
be glad, for had it been otherwise,
we certainly would not have the
pleasure of sex nor behold the rich
variety that exists within each spe–
cies; living things today would be
pretty much genetically identical to
the originals.
The Bible describes the origin of
sex among humans. God created a
second human, a female, different
in many important ways from the
first human, a maJe, and yet the
two perfectly complemented eacb
other.
The Scriptures proclaim, "Male
and female created he them. And
God blessed them, and God said
unto them, Be fruitful, and multi–
ply ..." (Gen. 1:27-28). Verse 31
records how God looked approv–
ingly at what he bad created and
pronounced it, sexual differences
and all , "very good."
The God Famlly
What so few understand, and yet
what is clearly revealed in the
Bible, is that God is also capable of
reproducing himself. God is a fam–
ily. There is God the Father
(1
Cor. l :3), and Jesus Christ, the
Son of God (verse 9). Further–
more, it is God's purpose to expand
his family-to add to the number
of beings in it.
Why this truth should surprise
even theologians is difficult to say.
The Scriptures plainly declare that,
(Continued on page 25)
The
PLAIN TRUTH