Saturday, April 21, 2007

Sex & Immortality

One of the blessings of life is that every week some new discovery makes its way into my consciousness. And when that happens, my imagination kicks in, and pretty soon I have a whole new philosophy to contend with. Now if I thought I saw a UFO land in my potato patch, I wouldn’t tell you. That would be just too irrational. But if I conceptualize theories from undeniable facts, especially theories that relate to the meaning of life (which no one knows for certain anyhow), then I am anxious to share those suppositions.

Now before I begin I must tell you that I see no conflict between ‘Biblical creation’ and ‘evolutionary’ creation. They fit as nicely together as two lovers in the spoon position.

After all when we read the story of the Biblical creation you will find it does not say that God mixed and molded any substance into fish and fowl. What it does say is that God commanded the waters (with their first tiny evolutionary microbes and stardust sprinkles from God’s hand) to ‘bring forth’ and ‘bring forth’ may well mean in an evolutionary way, fish and fowl. (Gen 1:20).

And then, from that he commanded ‘the earth to bring forth’ cattle and beasts (more evolution) (Gen 1:24). And so I reason that there is no conflict between creationism and evolution. There is nothing in the Bible that conflicts with evolution. Those references I have just cited validate that the earliest microbes evolved and adapted as evolution claims. And likewise, there is nothing to debate about how early man, if ape-like, could be in the image of God? Although God made earliest man in the image of God, nobody is using their head if they think this refers to man’s physical form. God has no image. God is a spirit and spirits have no physical design. The image of God that early man was given was not a domed forehead, smooth skin and an erect physical form. What he was given was an imprint of spiritual consciousness. Within that first more-man-like than ape-like creature, God deliberately caused a mutation of an embryonic consciousness, will, and intuition, that could evolve as freely as physical form did from the earliest form of a hairy ape-creature loping on four limbs to an erect creature capable of artful hunting, harvesting, and pondering. So where is the conflict between creationism and evolution?

That is the basis of my convictions and now we can move on to today’s discussion.


This week I have been reading “Human Destiny” by Lecomte du Nouy. And in this book, while reading about evolutionary theories, I was totally astonished to discover that species of asexual reproduction are immortal. Do you realize what that means? That there were and still are species on this earth that are immortal. Here Lecomte du Nouy explains:

“Asexual cells do not know death as individuals. They are immortal. (but) All of a sudden, with sexual generation we see the appearance of an entirely new and unforeseen cyclical phenomenon: the birth and death of the individual.”

Elsewhere he says:

“They (asexual species) never die, except accidentally. They go on untiringly doubling their number according to their specific rhythm, so that if it were not checked by a more general or dominant phenomenon, they would soon smother the earth under their mass.”

That bit of information got me thinking about Adam and Eve and creation. The way the story goes is that the Garden of Eden was a perfect paradise where Adam and Eve would live forever. Living forever???…that means immortality. So now I’m thinking, if they initially possessed immortality prior to their disobedience, they must have been created as an asexual species.

Hey, that makes sense when I consider the evolution of the first woman, Eve. The Bible says she was made from Adam’s rib. Isn’t that how asexual reproduction works? But unfortunately in this fission, separation, rebirth, or whatever you call asexual reproduction, a slight mutation took place. But we know mutations can happen. The all-knowing Darwin told us so. The mutation was that Eve ended up with a genitalia mutation. And so, although clones of each other, one was man and the other woman. And meanwhile, the asexual Adam, in reasonable time easily regenerated a new rib because that is what asexual creatures do.

But now, comes the distress concerning the apple. What was in that apple they ate? Or perhaps I should be asking, “What happened at the Apple Feast that made them cover their private parts with leaves when God came back to walk with them in the garden?”

Maybe it isn’t recorded, but maybe there was another command to do with their immortality and their initial existence as asexual creatures. Asexual species have no rational reason to engage in physical sex, particularly since the act cancels immortality. So what was God really saying when he warned them with this command (Gen 2:16-17) “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt SURELY DIE.”

So I have to ask was God really saying, “No eating of the fruit of that tree and no engaging in physical sex.” It is intriguing to me that prior to this warning, Adam and Eve felt no shame in their nakedness but after their disobedience with the apple, they felt so guilty, that their nakedness disturbed them and they sought to hide themselves. Apples have nothing to do with nakedness but sex certainly does, so maybe while they were alone in the garden, the two of them did more than eat the forbidden fruit.

And so, when God returned to the garden they were ashamed and felt a need to cover their nakedness. That only makes sense to me if they were romping in the bushes. And then God probably said, “You are asexual and thus immortal and that is why in good faith I told you there could be no physical sex. Now look what you’ve done. Disobeyed and because of that disobedience you have lost your immortality.”

And then, God expressly said to Eve, the seductress, something that is totally understandable in the light of all that I have just told you.

(Gen 3:16) “Unto the woman he said, ‘I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shall bring forth children (no longer with the ease of asexual reproduction); and thy desire shall be to thy husband (physical sexual lust), and he shall rule over thee.’

And obviously, under such circumstances he felt it necessary to inform Adam he was no longer immortal. So unto Adam he said, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” (Gen 3:19).

So there you go. No more immortality for man. I knew it all along that there was much more to this story than I originally extracted from it, and if you think these theories are nonsense, maybe go read it for yourself.


susan said...

No, your wonderings and wanderings are not without a basis. Immortality may be achieved eventually through reproduction I would think, though maybe this was not the original plan...

susan @ spinning

Matty said...

When I read the title of your post, I thought I was going to get a peek into the back seat of your car again, but it was not to be.
Your post does make a lot of sense, but doesn't immortality mean that you should live forever, and didn't Eve accomplish this, does she not live within each and every woman that came after her? Same with Adam.
It does make one ponder...which I'm not very good at 1st thing in the morning.
If Michael Jackson is asexual, does it mean he will live forever?
When I think of my God, no, I don't see Mel Gibson, but I do put a face on him, although I know he's a spirit, a loving intelligent almighty spirit.
But if we were meant to be asexual, then why give us the tools to romp with? and the wonderful feelings that go with it?
From day one, we have felt shame in our nakedness, I wonder if we were born that way, or in my case was the Catholic church to blame?
I have no problem with creationism and evolution. My ex was an ape!
Now I have to go and re-read your post a number of can be deep at times...and at times I'm slow.
Have a good week!

Roberta S said...

Hi susan. I wasn't going to post this. Problem is I think on a totally different level in the middle of the night than I do during the day. So at 2:00 in the morning I wrote this and posted it. Because at 2:00 a.m. it seemed every bit as rational as DaVinci's code and the stuff about finding Christ's tomb. I look at it now in the middle of the day and I feel like arguing that I didn't write this.

Despite my wish to deny I wrote this, I have always considered it a bit of a stretch for immortality to be achieved through normal sexual reproduction. My offspring differ too much from me for me to be satisfied with that theory. More satisfying, greater the likeness, more perfect the copy and spirit of that copy if they were clones (asexual offspring).

Roberta S said...

Oh matty. You make me laugh and cry all in one breath. I guess Michael Jackson is 'asexual' since it means reproduction without sex.

And your question about why we are built to have physical sex and enjoy it...What is a God-person to do with a species that would sooner have mortality and good sex rather than immortality and no sex.

I laugh when I read what you wrote matty and say to myself. Good thing we aren't next door neighbours. It would be too funny and we would certainly give this old world a shake up with our minds collaborating together. (chuckle).

Oh and by the way, originally (the Bible states this clearly), Adam and Eve found no shame in their nakedness.

I certainly appreciate your thoughts, Matty. They always bring a wonderful new slant to the stuff I'm thinking about.

Pauline said...

How does 'righteous, loving, and just' coincide with "eat this and you die?" Why bother with choice? Or why link moral and ethical with creation? These were the sorts of questions that got me kicked out of religion classes. I still haven't found satisfactory answers, but then "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest..."

Roberta S said...

pauline thanks for taking the time to chat. My questions were 'not appreciated' in Sunday School many days as well. Can you imagine me capsulating these comments to an righteous and all-wise flock leader? I can only guess that the Garden of Eden was the first lesson in temptation for a species given freedom of choice. And my primeval mind with its primeval memory accepts that for bad choices there need to be consequences. Like, that's how it was before 'time out'.

You make a valid point when you say anything can mean what we choose it to mean -- which brings us back to freedom of choice again.

Matty said...

I was chaste (chased) at 21...a virgin when I met my husband. It wasn't an apple actually, it was rum and coke. Wish I didn't!
Not the rum and coke, that was fine, I wish I didn't wait till 21.
Oh well!
And Roberta, seriously,,,,,would you really want to live forever?
I'll take mortality and good sex.

Roberta S said...

matty, I wouldn't mind immortality in a beautiful garden but not if it meant my companion would have to be the 'asexual individual' you mentioned in your last comment -- MJ.

And matty, again you make me laugh. Wish you wouldn't cause my stomach is still hurting from laughing about that priceless bit in your first comment. Namely ---"I have no problem with creationism and evolution. My ex was an ape!"

Matty said...

Sorry Roberta,
But he was an orangutang! Really! Wouldn't kid you! Actually he was a sociopath, but I was innocent. I will write about him in a future post, but because he just passed away (overdosed) last year...I should wait a year before I celebrate!
I do respect and honor his family, and they had to make the terrible decision to pull the plug, but nobody asked me. And I'm all for saving hydro! Ah well!