In this context does "God given", mean that God has "given" humans parameters for what is and is not appropriate behavior? Does "God given" mean that whatever it is that "God" gave us, is objective, clear and understandable? If it is, then where does one find out what "God" gave us on this topic? If not, then how could one not argue that anything fits under that category of "God given"? How did "God" give us this information? How do we know if it is really from God?
One way to look at this is through the lens of who God is (or at least how God is portrayed in the Bible). If Jesus choice of topics is any indication, then one could reasonably conclude that God is "King". One way one could conclude this is the fact that in the existing record of Jesus words he uses the phrase "Kingdom of God" between 90 and 100 times. He uses the term "King" between 10 and 20 times. He uses the term "Your/His Kingdom twice, and tells 3 parables about the what "Kingdom of God" is like. So, it seems safe to conclude that it is at least within the realm of probability that God is King of something.
If one was somehow willing to grant the above point, then it seems that one might ask, what does that mean?
One possible conclusion that could be drawn is that God is (in fact) the King of all creation. Or one could conclude that God (or god) is King (or king) of something, but not everything.
So, what is a king (or King)? According to the dictionary.com folks we find that two definitions are relevant here.
"1. a male sovereign or monarch; a man who holds by life tenure, and usually
by hereditary right, the chief authority over a country and people. "
"2.(initial capital letter) God or Christ."
So, one could reasonably conclude that when Jesus spoke of the "Kingdom of God", he was speaking of a realm where God was the chief authority. Most Christians would probably substitute "sole" for "chief", but I think the point stands.
What does that leave us with then, If "God given sexuality" does exist, then wouldn't it follow that something "given" by the King would be really more in the nature of an ordinance or command? Further, wouldn't it be logical to conclude that something of this nature "given" by the King would be communicated in some rational way? I mean really, what good is it to be King (king) if your gifts, wishes, ordinances, and commands are so vague and amorphous that no on can really grasp exactly what you meant?
I could go on, but I think my questions are enough for now.
Yet, we must grapple with the term "sexuality". If the term is used to mean that God has created humans to reproduce sexually, and that there is/are feelings of pleasure as well as emotional bonds created between the male and female sexual partners, then I suspect some might quibble around the edges, but at least agree in principle.
But, like many terms today, this seems to be one which can be used to mean virtually anything or nothing, potentially both at the same time.
So, we're left with a few questions before even evaluating whether of not the claim is reasonable.
What exactly is the definition of that term?
What, specifically, is sexuality?
Why did God "give us" a sexuality?
How do we know sexuality is "God given"?
If we don't live within the parameters of what God gave us concerning sexuality are we breaking a rule?
What, specifically, is sexuality?
Why did God "give us" a sexuality?
How do we know sexuality is "God given"?
If we don't live within the parameters of what God gave us concerning sexuality are we breaking a rule?
In the end we are left with a statement that at least implies multiple claims of fact.
1. There there is a God
2. That God gives us things in general
3. That God have given us a specific "sexuality"
4. That is is possible to know what #3 refers to and to understand that scope of what we have been given
5. That there is a scope of "God given sexuality", which can be known and adhered to
6. The straying outside of the scope of "God given sexuality" could be problematic
This may get continued, but I wanted to throw it out.
9 comments:
I know, I can't help myself. You asked some questions and I'll offer a few opinions in response.
What, specifically, is sexuality?
Specifically, it is our sexual nature, our sexual proclivities. When people say, "God-given sexuality" they are referring to the innate NON-HARMFUL natural desires we are born with (I clarify "non-harmful" because those of us who believe in a good God would not say that God "gave" us desires to rape or otherwise cause harm to others... so, even if it seems "natural" or innate to a particular troubled person, probably most of us would not consider that God-given...)
Why did God "give us" a sexuality?
I suppose it pleased God to please us. You'll have to ask God that, though, as I'm not able to answer for God.
How do we know sexuality is "God given"?
Well, as a point of fact, we don't "know." That is, it is not demonstrable one way or the other, it is not a provably known fact. Just as a point of fact. Rather, we have opinions about the topic, we don't "know..."
For those of us who believe in a Creator God, we tend to believe that God generally created everything, including human nature. How that plays out specifically, I, for one, can't say. Does God visit fetus Craig and "give" Craig specifically a list of sexual proclivities, and visit fetus Dan and give Dan a slightly different set of proclivities? I would guess it does not work like that.
Thus, when many of us speak of a God-given sexuality, we are speaking in general terms, affirming that we are, indeed, sexual creatures, that our sexuality is deeply innate and can be different from person to person.
If we don't live within the parameters of what God gave us concerning sexuality are we breaking a rule?
Well, since many of us don't believe in a God whose Way is Rule-Following, but in a God whose Way is Grace, we would not tend to embrace that idea of God. Thus, as Jesus said, we may remember that humanity was not created for the Sabbath, but the notion of Sabbath was given as a Grace to humanity. Not so much a "rule" - follow or die! - but a guideline - Taking a rest is a good thing for your soul. Rules found in the Bible are a fluid and changing thing, largely cultural. The over-arching point, Jesus clarified, is love God and love humanity. If our actions are from a place of love and helpfulness, then that's the guideline to follow, not a series of rules practiced by ancient cultures.
Our sexuality is innate and a good thing, as long as we don't use it to cause harm or in harmful ways. For some biblical characters, we find their stories telling how they used their sexuality in polygamous relationships, which were a cultural norm. Others lived out their sexuality in single partner (and, in the biblical stories, male/female) relationships, generally married (although not always). Others were "gifted" with celibacy.
Just to answer some questions you raised with my personal opinions.
Some ideas about some of your other questions...
If "God given sexuality" does exist, then wouldn't it follow that something "given" by the King would be really more in the nature of an ordinance or command?
If the "god" in question is a tyrannical god whose Way is one of following Rules, perhaps that might make sense.
If, on the other hand, the God in question is a loving and just God whose Way is one of Grace, it makes less sense.
Further, wouldn't it be logical to conclude that something of this nature "given" by the King would be communicated in some rational way?
Again, it might depend upon what sort of god is being considered. For the Live-or-Die-By-Rules God, it might make sense. For the God of Grace and Love, perhaps less so.
I mean really, what good is it to be King (king) if your gifts, wishes, ordinances, and commands are so vague and amorphous that no on can really grasp exactly what you meant?
And again, while for many people, "Simply give me black and white rules and then I can know how not to anger Thee" might be a comfort and require less reasoning and moral integrity to comply. But are we more of rule-following robots, following a god of rules? Or are we created to do good works in the image of a God whose Way is the Way of Grace?
I think the latter.
Just some thoughts in response to some interesting questions.
Dan
"When people say, "God-given sexuality" they are referring to the innate NON-HARMFUL natural desires we are born with (I clarify "non-harmful" because those of us who believe in a good God would not say that God "gave" us desires to rape or otherwise cause harm to others... so, even if it seems "natural" or innate to a particular troubled person, probably most of us would not consider that God-given...)"
Who are these "people" and why should anyone care what they "say"?
As usual we are lacking a precise objective definition of harmful.
'...we tend to believe that God generally created everything,..."
Would you care to define "created"?
"Thus, as Jesus said,..." Of course Jesus also said "If you love Me you will obey my "rules" (commandments). Which tends to undercut your premise.
"Our sexuality is innate and a good thing, as long as we don't use it to cause harm or in harmful ways."
Which, of course, means absolutely nothing in the real world. This is one of those amazing phrases that allows one to sound Orthodox, while leaving the door open to define "good thing" and "harm/harmful" in whatever way strikes someones fancy.
It seems as though you are denying that it is proper to refer to God as King. could you clarify?
"For the God of Grace and Love, perhaps less so."
The question was about God communicating in a way as to be understandable, what is it about your construct of "grace" and "love" that places a positive value of rational communication? Or, why would a God of "grace' and "love" fail to communicate His "grace' and "love" in a rational, clear, understandable way?
You could also explain how a God you have posited a God who is incapable of showing "grace" and "love" and out;lining a set of commandments by which He expects His people to live?
"For the Live-or-Die-By-Rules God..."
Except,no one is suggesting that this in any way describes the God of the Bible. It is however convenient for you to put forth this false characterization in order to win an argument against yourself. This is your warning. If you insist on inventing other peoples arguments out of whole cloth and arguing against the straw man you constructed, I will edit or delete your comments depending on how much time I am willing to invest.
Since this particularly egregious piece of crap,
" "Simply give me black and white rules and then I can know how not to anger Thee"
Is in the same comment as the one where I warned you about this, I will let it slide. But I don't have time to waste responding to specious self serving false crap like this.
"...comfort and require less reasoning and moral integrity to comply."
Because anyone without your highly developed advanced reasoning skills is someone of some lesser degree of spirituality that anyone who might.... Oh, who the hell cares about this kind of BS.
"...my personal opinions."
And right here we have the crux of the matter. Nothing objective, nothing transcendent, just Dan's unsupported hunches. I guess I was hoping for something definitive.
Who are these "people" and why should anyone care what they "say"?
Anyone progressive Christians I know, for starters. And why should you care? Well, because you have written a whole post all about what those people who use the term "God-given sexuality" must believe, I'd think it would matter to you what they actually, you know, believe. Because you are a good and honorable man who would not want to misrepresent others, for that reason, you should care.
You BEGAN with questions presumably about what those people who use that term believe, asking... "In this context does "God given", mean that God has "given" humans parameters for what is and is not appropriate behavior? Does "God given" mean that whatever it is that "God" gave us..." So, I hope you'll excuse me if thinking by asking the questions you might be interested in answers to those questions.
As usual we are lacking a precise objective definition of harmful.
From MW, Harmful: of a kind likely to be damaging; Injurious; inflicting or tending to inflict injury;
That I don't have a perfectly objective definition does not worry me much, as I'm not seeking a perfect ruling. I recognize the reality that in this world, we will only see and know in part. Such is life, eh?
DT
Would you care to define "created"?
Made. As in, we generally believe that God created or MADE everything. Which as I noted, is just a general belief, not that God specifically and individually fashioned little fetus Craig and Dan and made them just the way they are, but that, in the beginning, God created the heaves and earth, that God created or willed humanity into being, having the nature of God or image of God imprinted upon us.
Craig, do you believe that God micromanages creation and specifically fashions each person? What does that look like to you, if so?
This is one of those amazing phrases that allows one to sound Orthodox, while leaving the door open to define "good thing" and "harm/harmful" in whatever way strikes someones fancy.
But, for people of good will and intent, they are not seeking to define harmful in any way but, you know, harmful. We don't want to see harm caused to others. We don't want to see oppression, murder, rape, slavery, a denial of human rights, illness, pestilence, disease or other harmful acts foisted upon people. For people of good will and intent, the desire is to promote good, to promote liberty, to promote responsibility, to promote health, to promote love and forgiveness and grace. I assume that is your intent and am confident of it, just as I know it is the intent of my community and others like us.
So, I'm not sure what the hang up is, here, except the reality that we humans won't always "get it" just right and sometimes, we will make sincere mistakes in seeking the good, but that's true whether or not you treat the Bible like a rulings book.
It seems as though you are denying that it is proper to refer to God as King. could you clarify?
God as King is a metaphor, just as God as Father is. God did not literally implant sperm in people to make more people, it is metaphor. God is not literally a monarch ruling a kingdom in the manner of mere mortals, it is a metaphor.
Seems to me.
why would a God of "grace' and "love" fail to communicate His "grace' and "love" in a rational, clear, understandable way?
I don't think God has. I think the Bible does a great job making the case for a Way of Grace and Love, and in great detail outlining the problems with legalism.
You could also explain how a God you have posited a God who is incapable of showing "grace" and "love" and out;lining a set of commandments by which He expects His people to live?
In my household, we could give a detailed list, explaining to our children every POSSIBLE wrong they could do. That list could be thousands or hundreds of thousands of rules long. And indeed, we do that some for very young children. But as our children matured, we opted for another way: To teach them about VALUES - that it is important to love others, even our enemies, even the unlovable, even the homeless and dirty... that it is important to share, to live simply, to be ready to forgive, to stand ready to defend those in need of defense, etc, etc. We taught them general values that boil down to Love God, Love humanity, Love God's creation... and raised them to be adults that put those general principles in play with rules they work out for themselves... Why do that? Because we want to treat them like free adults, not children, not slaves, not robots.
I think God is described like that in the Bible and just reasonably considered.
That is why the Pharisees are so often painted and even parodied as legalists who failed to "get" that God is not about rules, but about love. "I desire mercy, not sacrifice..."
Then it happened that as Jesus was reclining at the table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were dining with Jesus and His disciples.
When the Pharisees saw this, they said to His disciples, “Why is your Teacher eating with the tax collectors and sinners?”
But when Jesus heard this, He said, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire compassion, and not sacrifice,’ for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Can you hear the loving, sad parody in Jesus' words, his teaching against legalism there? I'm sure you do.
So, the answer to your question is God COULD give us a million rules to live by to cover every possible instance, and indeed, that's what the Pharisees boiled it down to. But that wasn't God's Way, it seems to me.
Dan
"God as King is a metaphor,..."
Proof, please.
I see no reason to go any further unless and until you can provide objective proof of this claim.
"If you love Me, keep my commandments"
Jesus
I see no reason to go any further unless and until you can provide objective proof of this claim.
It is my opinion. If you will note what I wrote, "IT SEEMS TO ME..."
The bible speaks of God as father, but I see no reason to think God literally fathers everyone; of God as mother hen, but I see no reason to think that God literally has feathers; of God as shepherd, but I don't think that means God tends sheep literally and God as king, but I don't think that means he literally rules nations. In my opinion.
Do you, Craig, insist that each of these are literal realities or do you think that at least some of them are figurative in nature? If so, which ones are literal, in your opinion, and on what bases? And do you think that God is a king MUST be taken literally, as it is an established fact, or do you recognize that it is an opinion open to interpretation, not an established or known fact?
All in all, given all the titles for God, the ideas of God found in the Bible, I think that God IS like a father, in some ways, like a mother hen in other ways, like a king in some ways, etc. But that the closest, more literal understanding of God is God IS love, and God IS God. In my opinion.
I see no reason to go an further until you clarify your position and, if you are making a FACT claim, to provide proof. If you are stating a clear opinion, of course, no "proof" is necessary, because we don't provide "proofs" for unverifiable opinions, just reasons why we think it.
Post a Comment