Sexuality in review, is sexuality from God or not?

Sexuality under analysis

The origin of sexuality; from God or the result of evolution? Improper sexual behavior leads to suffering

In modern times, people attack the Christian faith. This happens for reasons such as evolution and liberal theology. When people do not believe Genesis or the historicity of Gospels, they completely reject the Christian faith.

However, the main topic of this article is not the study of history, but sexuality and sexual morality. When people do not believe in creation, they may also consider the Bible's teaching on sexuality outdated. It is not believed that morality is of God, that He is the creator and judge who judges each person by his actions and speeches. Instead, the current situation is reminiscent of the situation in Israel in the age of 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.

WHERE DOES SEXUALITY COME FROM? Sexuality is something that is associated above all with reproduction. It is the main purpose of sexuality. The mechanism of reproduction can come from only two sources:

• It was born and developed by chance

• It was created by God

Which of the previous options is correct? Those who have a naturalistic worldview automatically lean towards the side of the first option, but there are insurmountable problems with this view. The following factors, among others, call into question the naturalistic theory:

• How did reproduction happen before there were reproductive organs? Shouldn't the reproductive organs have been ready from the start? Sexuality and reproduction must work right from the first generation, otherwise there will be no offspring, but the result will be extinction.

• How could the genitals suitable for a dog and a female develop separately and in different individuals? Shouldn't that have been impossible since the development would have had to happen simultaneously in two individuals?

• An even bigger problem is the different gametes in the dog and the female, which match each other, merge with each other and develop into a new individual in this world. How can compatible gametes develop separately from each other?

• The awakening of love and interest between different sexes is a puzzle. How could such a thing have evolved from a simple primordial cell that certainly had no sexual interest?

• Extinction would have threatened also if the uterus, birth canal and secured food intake had not been ready immediately. In fact, all the organs and stages related to reproduction should have been ready immediately, otherwise life could not have continued. The fact that all these parts would have arisen spontaneously and just by themselves is, however, so fanciful that there is reason to doubt its possibility.

• Breasts and teats and the milk that comes from them secure food intake for the months immediately after birth. How can this essential thing for survival come about by chance?

It was stated above that the naturalistic theory of sexuality and reproduction is mindless. Such things cannot develop by themselves from some state of the Big Bang, but must be ready immediately, otherwise the result will be immediate extinction (Provided that life has been ready first. No one has been able to solve the riddle of the origin of life, and no practical observation supports the possibility, that it would have arisen by itself). Much more reasonable is the teaching that these things came through God's work of creation. It is more natural to believe in that than in the birth of everything by itself. That is the most reasonable explanation for human sexuality.

The following verses relate specifically to man, whom 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.

So what can be concluded about sexuality and reproductive capacity? If it is a feature that God has put in us, then surely He Himself defines what is right in that area. He can also judge us for it if we do not follow His instructions.

Sexuality itself is not a bad thing, but the following verses, like the previous verses, show its proper boundaries in the relationship between husband and wife in marriage. This was the original concept of creation that Jesus was referring to. We are fools if we do not heed these teachings and warnings. If a person is a being of eternity, it is not worth losing eternal life because of wrong choices:

- (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 man is an eternal being and the actions we do matter, then why do most people not consider the previous verses of the Bible?

One reason for this is the importance of the media. We get several wrong models of sexuality through it. They may contain pornography, encouragement of premarital sex, extramarital affairs or homosexuality. These materials affect our minds and attitudes. People absorb what they read and listen to.

However, those who are guilty of this kind of activity – e.g. spreading pornography – should think about things in the light of eternity. God has loved all people, but if a person intentionally does wrong and even leads others astray, the judgment of such a person is greater. Some may argue against this and claim the following verses as lies, but how do they prove their point of view correct? If their probability is even 10 percent, it is also worth taking into account. Don't be a fool but consider 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 stated, people may consider the Bible's teaching on sexual morality to be outdated. They do not believe that e.g. relationships outside of marriage or practicing homosexuality belong to the category of wrong actions, and that human actions have an impact on eternity. They think that such views are not relevant today. 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. In previous decades, the issue mainly concerned extramarital relationships, but in recent years gay couples have also been featured in the media. Both things have been defended with love.

A small quote shows how development started in the late 1960s. The description tells how it was customary to contrast marriage and love back then:

(...) In the student world, 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 that the Teen League had been taken over by new leaders who proclaimed not only socialism and school democracy, but also the idea of free sexual relations. All in all, what was new was that reference groups had formed that spoke much more openly about gender issues than had previously been customary in public, accusing society and the Church of applying double standards.

The tone of the conversation was to a large extent ethical. Morality was considered evil. It was reproached. At the same time, however, new morality was proclaimed, often in a very moralistic and intolerant manner. Whereas in the past there was talk of understanding the sexual behaviour of young people, some groups declared now that it is right to have casual sexual relations. The institution of marriage and real genuine love were even contrasted. Couples living unlegalized cohabitation were interviewed in public as some kind of heroes of a new morality who dared to stand up against the morality of a degenerate bourgeois society. Similarly, homosexuals were interviewed and free abortion was called for.... "Love in the name of the law" was the headline of a radio program that presented legal marriage and true love 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 possibility is that the couple divorces, but nevertheless a child is born. The child lives with the other parent or 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 the prevention of children's future suffering, but "the proponents of this idea ... must ask two questions of conscience. The first is this: How many people, when they speak nicely about children's sufferings, actually mean their own future sufferings, their lost free time, increased effort and fear of environmental attitudes? The second is this: Who among us can go to the gate of the world to sort the comers into those who suffer more and those who suffer less? Who can predict another's future with certainty in advance? Great personalities have emerged from difficult circumstances; some have gone off the rails having had an easy life. How many Leonardo da Vincis or August Strindbergs must have been destroyed during this abortion law!” (2)

What about children's raising and well-being? Many studies have shown that children thrive best in families where the parents have a permanent relationship like marriage. It is emotionally the best situation for the children and socially the most economical way to take care of the children. Other options are more expensive and worse. It has also been established that criminals mostly come from children's homes or single-parent families (usually the father is absent). This is an unfortunate fact, which the statistics prove.

If we were asked to design a system to ensure all children’s basic needs are being taken care of, we would probably end up somewhere, what is similar to the ideal of having two parents. In theory, this kind of plan does not only ensure that the children get two adult’s time and resources, it also provides a controlling and balancing system, which promotes high-class parenthood. Both parent’s biological relationship with the child increases the probability that the parents are able to identify themselves with the child and are ready to make sacrifices for the child. It also decreases the probability of the parents exploiting the child. (3)

It has been cogently showcased that children do not flourish, despite good physical care, if they are being held in impersonal institutions, and that separation from the mother – especially during certain periods – is very damaging to the child. Typical implications of institution care are mental retardation, indifference, regressing and even death, when a sufficient surrogate mother is not available. (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)

So what happens when people defend extramarital affairs in the name of love, or when they march for homosexual relations in the name of love?

The direct answer is that it weakens the position of children. It leads to sexual experimentations by selfish adults and the breakdown of ordinary relationships and families (which means increased costs to society. E.g. Etelä-Suomen sanomat reports on 31 October 2010: A billion will soon be spent on institutional care for children and young people, Children's problems have escalated drastically since the beginning of the 1990s... Institutional care for one child costs up to 100,000 euros per year.../ Similarly, Aamulehti reported on March 3, 2013: A marginalised young person costs 1.8 million. If even one is brought back into society, the result is positive.) That may not be the intention of the marchers or those who stand up for these things in the name of love, but it is a direct result. The more these issues are brought up in the media, the more it breaks up families and relationships. Children become surrogate victims of adults' selfishness, which they call love.

The following quote shows how more and more children are born out of wedlock, and how the costs of society have increased as a result of the breakup of families. When the so-called the sexual revolution started at the end of the 1960s, at that time only approx. 5% of children were born out of wedlock. Since then, the number has grown, divorces have become more common and children's nausea has increased. If development has taken place, at least it has not increased the overall happiness and well-being of society. The situation has gone from bad to 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. One-quarter of single parents receive income support.

In 2006, 15,628 children and young people were placed outside the home by the authorities. Nearly 40% of those placed come from one-parent families.

... The responsibilities of society increase when parents are unable or unwilling to take responsibility for raising their children. In 2009, a total of more than 70,700 children and young people were clients of child welfare social work and open care support measures. More than 16,000 of them were placed outside the 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)

Infectious diseases and the economy. Confusing love and sexuality can be expensive for society. One consequence of this is contagious diseases that are easily spread through sexual relations. If it's a disease like smallpox, the Black Death, or AIDS (or some new form that's not yet known), it can wreak havoc. That's what happened in Africa in the last few decades, and that's what happened with America's homosexuals a few decades ago. AIDS wreaked havoc and the working age population lost their health and lives. These diseases are not harmless, but can be a great loss for society, including its economy. In addition, the costs of treating the disease are expensive, potentially costing thousands of euros.

(Abortion can be a similar thing. When, for example, Finland is missing half a million people due to abortions, it has distorted the population pyramid. That may be one of the reasons for the current debt problem. When the number of tax payers of working age is small, it is not possible to pay pensions and social costs. It is made with debt money.)

Truth into account. As stated, extramarital affairs or homosexual relations have been defended in the name of love. People have marched and made propaganda for them. It has been argued that it is narrow-minded if you do not have a positive attitude towards these things.

However, the most important thing is the truth. If it is true that we are eternal beings and our actions matter to ourselves and others, then true love is to act according to that truth. Although some claim to represent love, it cannot last if truth and eternity are not taken into account. Let's look at a few verses. The last verses are only related to the salvation of the soul. Take into account the possibility that the teaching of the Bible is true and applies to us. Do not reject God's call when in his love he wants to save you and give your life a new direction.

- (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?

REFERENCES:

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