Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,
As salamu 'alikum wr wb, (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you.)
Sex, Sensuality and the Christian Heaven.
It truly is unfortunate when one reflects upon early Christian attitudes towards sexuality. It reflects an almost Gnostic (anti-human) and (pro being) stance.
Islam is a reflection of the reality of what the Creator actually made. Allah has made us as Human/Beings.
We are animals (human) with a soul (being). In Islam you do not nurture or neglect one aspect of your reality to the detriment of the other.
The Noble Prophet Muhammed said, "Who ever does not marry is not of us." He is talking about people who have taken upon themselves monasticism; of which Allah says was never ordained for human beings.
"Whomever marries has completed half their faith now let them complete the other half by fearing Allah and doing what is right" -Noble Prophet Muhammed.
"Then We caused Our Messengers to follow in their footsteps; and We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow, and gave him the Gospel, and placed compassion and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him. But monasticism they invented-We ordained it not for them-only seeking Allah's pleasure, and they observed it not with right observance. So We give those of them who believe their reward, but many of them are evil-doers." ( Holy Qur'an 57:27)
"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:12)
No doubt this is a continuation of an earlier admonishment reported to have been given by Jesus where he is to have said,
If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matthew 5:29-30)
"If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. (Matthew 18:18)
So we can see here it was not necessary for Jesus to say "If your penis offends you, if your ears offend you etc... people pretty much got the ideal.
Of course this can become quite morbid when one reflects upon 'The City of God' -Augustine. I mean after all didn't God say to Adam and Eve: "God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Genesis 1:28)
Now it should be clear that NO WHERE is there an explicit text in the Bible that says 'There will be NO SEX' in heaven! Again your going to have to go into the warped thinking of Augustine to come up with this kind of nonsense. Even though the Creator says that the creation 'is good' these people can only see it as evil! A legacy from earlier gnostic influence rest assured.
So let us look at the text that are most often used to try and conclude that there is no sex in marriage.
23That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24“Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him.25Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27Finally, the woman died. 28Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”
29Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. (Matthew 22:23-30)
Note the above says absolutely nothing about sex. It simply says that people will not marry and they will not be given in marriage. Remember asking your Priest/Deacon/Pastor/Bishop how Adam and Eve were married? Remember hearing those cool little stories about how they were 'married in the sight of God'?"and sons of God see the daughters of men that they are fair, and they take to themselves women of all whom they have chosen."(Genesis 6:2 Young's Literal Translation).
"the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose."(Genesis 6:2 New International Version)
Now notice that the Young's Literal Translation basically says that the Sons of God 'took the women'. While the other translations say that the 'married' the women. So how actually did they get married? Was it in the 'sight of God' as well? If these beings 'angels' are law breakers and transgressors why get married?
Furthermore note that it says 'SONS of God' and I already mentioned the Christian heaven is not for FEMALES! It is for men only, any woman deemed worthy enough will be turned into a SON OF GOD. Never ever a daughter of God! Note it doesn't say 'The Daughters of God' saw the sons of men were beautiful. (http://www.acommonword.net/2011/01/does-christian-heaven-have-place-for.html) < Article entitled "Does the Christian Heaven Have A Place For Women"?
Mark 12 and Luke 20 basically have the same story as the one above.
Remember in the Bible resurrected beings enjoy all kinds of sensual pleasure!
"And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have you here any meat? And they gave him a piece of broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. (Luke 24:41-43) Apparently Jesus was able to eat some tasty tidbits as the 'firstborn' of the resurrection.
We also have this curious vision.
"On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine--the best of meats and the finest of wines." (Isaiah 25:6)
So move over Augustine looks like fine dining and great wine will be on the menu in heaven but no sex!
Now even though the passages in Matthew 22, Mark 12 and Luke 20 do not explicitly say there is no sex in heaven some Christians reason that only by way of analogical deduction. They don't stop and ponder that maybe the whole idea of marriage (with it's laws and ordinances) will no longer be a necessity in heaven.
Another passage that Christians especially those who have an Augustine slant could use is the following:
"Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads." (Revelation 14:1)
"No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4. These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins (parthenos). They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as first fruits to God and the Lamb. (Revelation 14:3-5)
Now this text is probably the strongest AGAINST the idea of having sex in heaven. Because if the translation is rendered correct these men remained VIRGINS and they did not DEFILE themselves with women (outside of marriage or INSIDE of marriage). Now think about that for a moment especially if your a woman! Also it's quite sad that not a single woman out of all of Earth's women will be singled out to be among the privileged 144,000 that get to learn this special song!
I guess there will be no sex in heaven after all, in fact it's kind of hard for that to happen when THERE ARE ONLY MEN IN HEAVEN.. (http://www.acommonword.net/2011/01/does-christian-heaven-have-place-for.html)....unless...wait... I better not go there!
But monasticism they invented; We ordained it not for them [...] and they observed it not with right observance.
ReplyDeleteThen tell me the names of the wives of Jesus and John the Baptist, whom Islam reveres as Prophets.
"the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose."(Genesis 6:2 New International Version)
If God was so pleased with angels taking wives, why did He destroy all their offspring by the waters of the Great Flood? Similarly, if God was so pleased with men marrying men, why did He destroy Sodom and Gomorrah by fire?
Note the above [Matthew 22:23-30] says absolutely nothing about sex. It simply says that people will not marry and they will not be given in marriage
Your (mis)interpretation of Christ's words is illogical. In both Judaism and Christianity, angels [and spirits and God] are gender-less beings. The ending of the verse itself would make no sense if we are to read it the way you suggest. Plus the fact that sexual abstinence was part of the standard norm for encountering God in both the Old and the New Testaments. And intercourse also rendered one ritually impure (not fit to be in the presence of God and touch holy things). Christ spoke to Jews who knew the Old Testament.
It's also obvious that since Adam and Eve were unaware of their nakedness before the Fall, they did not had intercourse in the Garden of Eden.
With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
ReplyDeleteLvka ask, "Then tell me the names of the wives of Jesus and John the Baptist, whom Islam reveres as Prophets." To my knowledge Jesus/Esau and John/Yahya were not married. In Islam the scholars Ibn Tamiyyah and Nawawi were also not married.
However, the Qur'an is bringing forth the argument that the idea to be a monk or celibacy is not something that Allah has ordained upon men. That much is very clear.
"If God was so pleased with angels taking wives"
apparently according to your theological view angels can't take wives. However, that text clearly says they did. I'll leave that for you to settle that conundrum.
"Your (mis)interpretation of Christ's words is illogical. In both Judaism and Christianity, angels [and spirits and God] are gender-less beings."
Again that is your (mis)interpretation of the text Lvka not mine. I go by what the text say CLEARLY without using fanciful interpretation. For example in Christianity everyone is changed into a masculine form (Sons of God) the Bible not once portrays the angels as 'Daughters of God'. The Bible NOT ONCE calls the angels "gender-less beings" leave it to the Greek Orthodox such as yourself to come up with such.
"The ending of the verse itself would make no sense if we are to read it the way you suggest."
It would make perfect sense for a number of reasons as one would not be concerning themselves with inheritance laws in heaven (who gets what) with a whole host of laws that are clearly meant to have civil society on Earth.
"It's also obvious that since Adam and Eve were unaware of their nakedness before the Fall, they did not had intercourse in the Garden of Eden."
Again this another one of your wild (mis) interpretations Lvka. Being unaware of one's nakedness does not necessarily entail that Adam and Eve did not have sex in the Garden of Eden.
I will take the clear statement of "be fruitful and MULTIPLY" over your wild eyed Greek Orthodox 'sex is unholy' interpretation.
Again I stand with Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammed who taught the natural faith of mankind.
I don't follow your Gnosticism and Anti Christ traditions.
Islam doesn't differ from Judaism & Christianity in its view of Angels as genderless beings. [At least not in its traditional or orthodox form].
ReplyDelete_________________________________________________
Sin is not "impossible", it's just not permitted (so there's no "conundrum"). Men "can" also take other men as wives: but they're not allowed to.
When women mated with Angels, Noah's Great Flood followed (Gen. 6). When the people of Sodom and Gomorrah tried to mate with the two Angels sent to them by God, they were punished with fire and brimstone (Gen. 19).
Seriously, doesn't it bother you in the least that the only 2 places in the whole Bible where Angels and sex are put together, destruction and mayhem ensue?
_________________________________________________
It's fallacious to say you "stand with Moses" on this issue, because, as we see in Exodus 19:14-25, abstinence is required for encountering God (that's the message that God delivered to Israel through Moses).
Now why would God do that, if sex were part of Heaven?
The same is true of 1 Samuel 21:4-6, where abstinence is required from King David (Dawud) in order to partake of the hollowed bread from God's Temple.
But the Temple is only a mere image of God's Kingdom, so if we can't even touch the Temple-bread after intercourse, how then can we have sex in Heaven?
Isn't it therefore obvious that, if we were to interpret Scripture as you suggest, the Bible would cease making any sense?
So, as we can see, two of Islam's Prophets, Musa and Dawud, are practically teaching the exact opposite of what you are saying. [Again, doesn't this in the least bother you?]
_________________________________________________
Your derogatory view of Gnosticism is rather curious, given the fact that Islam's denial of the Crucifixion is based on Docetist (Gnostic) views [you probably remember my article about it].
References to Gnostic Gospels are also found in the Qur'an (such as Jesus making clay-birds and breathing life into them: taken from the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas).
With the name of Allah,
ReplyDeletePeace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
Lvka ty for your comments. This is some healthy interaction for a change.
Where in the above did I say, "Sin is not "impossible" ...."
This is what I said:
"apparently according to your theological view angels can't take wives. However, that text clearly says they did. I'll leave that for you to settle that conundrum."
If you equate sin with marriage that is your problem not mine. It shows the Gnostic inundation of Orthodox Christianity and it's shrill attitudes towards sexuality.
I did note that you did not tackle my response to your fanciful interpretation of Adam and Eve. That is noted.
I still stand with Moses and you part with him Lvka. Do you not understand the statement attributed to Moses?
"So Moses went down from the mountain to the people and sanctified the people, and they washed their clothes. 15 And he said to the people, "Be ready for the third day; do not come near your wives." (Exodus 19:14)
Muslims have periods of abstention from our wives during the month of Ramadan. However, note that Moses was a MARRIED man.
The Qur'an is clear: "But monasticism they invented-We ordained it not for them-only seeking Allah's pleasure, and they observed it not with right observance. So We give those of them who believe their reward, but many of them are evil-doers."
You know full well that David and Moses were not monastic.
You should also know that Christians are to be in union with Christ.
Could you explain to your Christian audience how the Holy Spirit and Union with Christ depart them every time a husband and a wife have intimate relations together?
This is clear error, and your going against the fitra.
Quran 30:30 "So establish yourself to the system of monotheism. It is the inclination that God has nurtured the people on. There is no changing in the creation of God. Such is the pure system, but most of the people do not know."
Again there is nothing about David or Moses being in a state of monasticism.
I think it is your religion influenced by Hellenistic Gnosticism that teaches the world of duality. The Demi-urge and Jesus.
Little wonder for Marcion was the first to put the canon of the New Testament together.
Doesn't that bother you Lvka? Does it not eat away at your conscious?
"References to Gnostic Gospels are also found in the Qur'an (such as Jesus making clay-birds and breathing life into them: taken from the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas)."
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting argument coming from an Orthodox Christian who believes the tradition came before the text. I thought you held oral tradition in high esteem? I guess not.
This is also an odd point being advanced by someone who believed that God Almighty was in Christ Jesus for 30 years on this Earth and no record of his life is recorded?
We have got his birth narratives, and than Luke 2:52 and that's just about it!
Doesn't that bother you Lvka? Does it not eat away at your conscious?
I don't remember saying that Moses and David were monks... do you?
ReplyDeleteI also notice you didn't contradict anything I've said; namely:
1) That it is against the nature of Angels to take wives (Gen. 6 & 19), and that traditional Islam agrees with this.
2) That --regardless of one's marital status-- WHEN one has to encounter the Divine, he or she has to abstain from one's spouse for a few days beforehand.
And, obviously, what else is Heaven if not THE final and ultimate encounter with the Divine? (meaning therefore, according to both Old [and New] Testament Scriptures, total abstinence).
3) The passages I've mentioned are from the Old Testament: not from Gnostic writings or the NT, so your mention of Marcion and the NT canon is neither here, nor there.
With the name of Allah,
ReplyDeletePeace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
1) That it is against the nature of Angels to take wives (Gen. 6 & 19), and that traditional Islam agrees with this.
I think you need to read the text above is says that the angels DID TAKE WIVES. If you don't see what that text clearly states Lvka there is no further use for exchange.
Next. You say, "and that traditional Islam agrees with this." Before I comment on that would you mind giving a citation? What traditional Islamic sources do you have in mind? Anything you personally read or is time to do the 'google machine'?
Lvka you said,
"WHEN one has to encounter the Divine, he or she has to abstain from one's spouse for a few days beforehand."
I wouldn't necessarily dispute that either, however, what I do dispute is what you think is an ancillary logic to that statement.
"And, obviously, what else is Heaven if not THE final and ultimate encounter with the Divine?"
But isn't this an assumption that God is 'every where in Heaven' and not a location'? For example the divine throne? Heaven sounds pretty vast to me.
Just like God can see us now and look down upon us. God is aware of all that we do does not mean we are always in his presence.
Again do you have any response to my response of your statement here:
"It's also obvious that since Adam and Eve were unaware of their nakedness before the Fall, they did not had intercourse in the Garden of Eden."
Again this another one of your wild (mis) interpretations Lvka. Being unaware of one's nakedness does not necessarily entail that Adam and Eve did not have sex in the Garden of Eden.
Have you agreed not to pursue this point?
the text above says that the angels DID TAKE WIVES
ReplyDelete...which action was against their nature, for which they and their offspring were punished by the Flood (according to Genesis and the Book of Enoch). What is so hard to understand?
What traditional Islamic sources do you have in mind?
Islam itself, as it is traditionally taught.
Being unaware of one's nakedness does not necessarily entail that Adam and Eve did not have sex in the Garden of Eden.
That's utterly absurd and non-sensical.
They did not "know that they were naked" before Gen. 3:7, and they did not "know each other" until Gen. 4:1 -- the meaning is clear and flows from the text itself.
With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
ReplyDeleteLucian I will let our comments stand as they are. I will let the readers decide. I personally do not find your responses at all logical and I find many of your interpretations quite forced. I find that you ignore the text completely. When asked very simply the following question:
"What traditional Islamic sources do you have in mind?"
You respond,
"Islam itself, as it is traditionally taught."
Can you imagine if I told you Orthodox Christianity taught something and than when asked to give evidence of it I refuse?
I think your lack of scholarship and readership is readily apparent. Lvka (Lucian) you are transparent. There is no further need for me to continue this discussion, and I will leave to the people.
To you is your way and to us is our way.