Is sexual immorality idolatry?

[Traveler]

If we look at creation through strictly biblical eyes, there seems to be a tremendous difference in the way Adam and Eve were created and how we were. God spoke and Adam & Eve came into existence. This is what scripture says. There is no talk of a God-mother. Cain and Abel, on the other hand, came to being through sexual intercourse.

It can be argued that creation out of nothing is an assumption. Perhaps it is. So too is the idea that God made Adam and Eve like we were made.

The added revelations of your faith may lead you to the latter notion. I'd suggest our lack of those revelations makes the former assumption seem more likely. I'll not deny that there is logic and beauty to your line of reasoning though.

Would you mind quoting the scriptures that speaks specifically to the creation of Adam and not to the creation of man? The only difference I find is in the creation of Eve from a rib of Adam - but I am thinking that is poetic symbolism rather than scientific fact. But I do understand that even in my LDS faith there are good people that understand this differently than I do - I would expect more so between you and I - I am just probing you for the justification. For me, I understand the creation within the context of both my scientific and religious background and the understanding that G-d does not change his methods or ways. If you have a scripture on G-d changing his methods and ways (when he feels like it) I would be interested in such a reference - and if not; how is that changing notion justified in the light of the context of the Bible as the authority.

Thanks

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Would you mind quoting the scriptures that speaks specifically to the creation of Adam and not to the creation of man?

Gen 2: 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

It seems obvious to me that the man is Adam, since he ended up in the Garden of Eden. God formed him from the dust of the earth. There is no indication that he impregnated a God-mother to bring about Adam's existence.

If you have a scripture on G-d changing his methods and ways (when he feels like it) I would be interested in such a reference - and if not; how is that changing notion justified in the light of the context of the Bible as the authority.

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever...and yet he made each of us as a distinct individual. He granted mercy to Nineveh, yet declared most of Canaan to be under a holy curse (no humans or animals allowed to survive). Jesus forgives Peter his multiple denials, yet when the rich young ruler comes to him Jesus demands he sell everything if he wants to follow Jesus.

All that to say that God does not change. This truth does not mean that we can box God in, and expect identical patterns of behavior with a given set of circumstances.

So God creates the world out of nothing and then sets in motion a pattern of procreation, generally by sexual intercourse. I do not see this as any violation of God's unchanging nature.

Edited September 10, 2013 by prisonchaplain

[Traveler]

Gen 2: 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

It seems obvious to me that the man is Adam, since he ended up in the Garden of Eden. God formed him from the dust of the earth. There is no indication that he impregnated a God-mother to bring about Adam's existence.

I will go out a little on a limb here. Most agree that the Book of Genesis is written in distinct ancient Hebrew poetic form. That there is a great deal of "symbolism" rather than "literal" content. For example the term "dust of the ground" is a symbolic reference to "stuff" that has no value. In essence worthless to try to grow anything or use for any other purpose. So rather than man being created from nothing we can understand that G-d accomplished his greatest creation from the most worthless stuff existing in the universe. The symbolic meaning is profound. Especially to those that think man could not have evolved from ape like creatures because it is so demeaning - where as the scriptures indicate that man evolved from stuff that was much more worthless.

But I would like to turn now to the text in your quote that I have highlighted in red. This symbolic phrase appears in only two other places in Biblical scripture - both of which are in the 7th chapter of Genesis - verse 15 and verse 22. I will quote verse 15 here because it is the most pertinent to our discussion (thought verse 22 communicates basically the same thing):

15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

I would submit that the two and two of all flesh is a direct reference to gender and that the breath of life does indeed imply sexual reproduction. If we go back to the creation of man - it is only after the "breath of life" (sexual reproduction) that man becomes a living soul.

Granted it may be possible to read something else into this - but my point is that if one is looking for consistency between that which was ancient and that which is today - that the doctrine is in the scriptures and not contrary at all or in any way inconsistent to scripture.

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever...and yet he made each of us as a distinct individual. He granted mercy to Nineveh, yet declared most of Canaan to be under a holy curse (no humans or animals allowed to survive). Jesus forgives Peter his multiple denials, yet when the rich young ruler comes to him Jesus demands he sell everything if he wants to follow Jesus.

All that to say that God does not change. This truth does not mean that we can box God in, and expect identical patterns of behavior with a given set of circumstances.

So God creates the world out of nothing and then sets in motion a pattern of procreation, generally by sexual intercourse. I do not see this as any violation of God's unchanging nature.

We know that G-d does in deed change - the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is proof that G-d does change (Jesus being the example of G-d). But we also know that G-d is not a respecter of person - what G-d will do for anyone he will do for all. The difference is not in G-d's ways or methods but in our understanding of his ways and methods. Anyway that is my belief and opinion and I have not found an exception -- yet.

The Traveler