Alpha Omega

The naming of something in ancient cultures symbolized one’s superiority over that thing. What God is revealing in these verses is that man has authority over the animals and things of this world. Man is superior to the animals of this world because he has a logical, rational mind.

Unlike the animals, man has language and music and can think abstractly. That is why there is no animal in whom human beings can find a helper like themselves. That is, humans cannot find true companionship in an animal; man cannot depend on the animals to befriend him. Men and women can only find true companionship in their fellow human beings.

In the next several verses God reveals who it is in this world in whom a person can find a helper like himself, a true companion. It is a revelation of the sanctity of the marriage bond. Adam calling his wife woman does not mean that the husband has authority over his wife or that males are superior to females. It just means that a husband and wife complement each other in marriage. They each have a “helper” in the marriage in order to make life easier for each other. The husband helps the wife and the wife helps the husband.

In verse twenty-one through twenty-four our Lord takes Adam’s “rib” and consecrates him and his wife in the marriage bond. Thus, they are two in one flesh or body. This is from the Latin: et erunt duo in carne una.

Again, this in no way symbolizes that the husband has dominance over the wife in the marriage bond. This is a sanctification of the marriage bond between a man and a woman. They both become as one unit, acting together toward a common goal. Both the man and the woman agree to share their lives in communal responsibility to each other. The passage “she is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh,” merely means that women can think and act like men. They can think logically and act rationally.

None of this means that a person has to get married. Many people choose to remain single. This is their decision and there is nothing wrong with it. Others choose just to live with someone without getting married. This is their decision. It is all right too and is discussed further in the next section. Still, others choose to live with a member of the same sex. That is, they choose a homosexual (gay or lesbian) life style.

Many condemn this as sinful. However, there is evidence which suggests that homosexuality cannot be sinful. Recent studies of human pheromones indicate a biological basis for sexual orientation or that it is influenced by hormones. These studies imply that sexual orientation has a genetic cause while the fetus is still in the womb or later when the child reaches puberty.

Further, testosterone is the male hormone that is produced by the testicles and in small amounts by the ovaries, and estrogen is the female hormone that is produced by the ovaries and in small amounts by the testicles. But some men’s testicles produce more estrogen than the average male, while some women’s ovaries produce more testosterone than the average female. Also, many men and women are born with an abnormal sex chromosome makeup and some are born as hermaphrodites.

Many geneticists and sexologists believe that all these type people have a genetic tendency to be homosexual. Other scientists believe that homosexuality is due to the psychological character of the person or some other biological trait. Still others believe that homosexuality is a combination of these traits. But whichever theory proves to be true, (present research indicates that homosexuality is genetic) if homosexuality if is due to the genetic makeup, the psychological character of the person or some other biological trait, then this is because a homosexual is born that way.

God created the laws of genetics that determine the makeup of the zygote. It is these laws the determine the genetic makeup or the psychological character of the person. Thus, it is ultimately God’s choice as to what genetic predisposition a person will have. It is ultimately God who decides as to whether a person would be genetically predisposed to be a homosexual or not. Since God cannot sin, homosexuality therefore cannot be sinful.

As to why the bible condemns it is probably due to ignorance. But one must leave this type of information to those theologians with whom this is concerned to figure out.

Finally, it may be legally alright for two homosexuals to live together as one in a civil marriage. But it is unknown whether they can become two in one flesh in the sacrament of marriage. Again, this is better left to those theologians with whom this is concerned to figure out.

In verse twenty-four it says: wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife. It appears that God called for Adam to take up his family and leave his father and mother. This is similar to the call He would later make of Abram (Gen.12:1-3).

It should be obvious that our Lord did this because He wanted to ensure that Adam’s new faith in the High God would take root and grow into a great tree of faith, a faith large enough for other souls to follow into the kingdom of heaven. Just as a gardener would hoe around a sapling tree and put a fence up around it to prevent it from being trampled by a passerby, so too, did God feed Adam’s faith in the High God concept and separate it from those who would most likely destroy it.

One does not know exactly where Adam lived. One knows that Abram lived in or near the city of Ur in ancient Mesopotamia. One also knows that this area was the cradle of civilization, where ancient man began his long journey toward today’s modern technology. One can therefore assume that Adam probably lived somewhere in the ancient Near East.

Although our Lord probably inspired Adam to leave the tribe in which he was born in order to begin his own tribe, it is doubtful that our Lord would have expected Adam to travel thousands of kilometers (miles) to do so. Such would have been beyond this ancient man’s abilities.

Adam, in all likelihood, would have remained in the near East but separated from the family of his father’s tribe. This is confirmed by the fact that verses ten through fourteen discuss four rivers of ancient Mesopotamia. Thus, it appears that Adam probably lived somewhere in this area.

The above verse does not imply that Adam and his wife were physically naked all the time. Nor is this the nakedness of sin, because their souls were clothed with the full grace of God at this point in the biblical narration. The nudity of Adam and his wife spoken of here is an innocent, chaste nudity. Our Lord discloses here that there is nothing inherently wrong with nudity and sex. That is to say, acts of love performed by two people in love are not evil. This is especially true in the marriage bond.

The shame of sin enters only through those individuals who desire and who perceive nudity and sex as something wrong and evil and through those individuals who exploit nudity and sex with lies and deception for their own greed and selfish gain.

Our Lord did not say that it was a sin to look at a nude body. He said that it was a sin to look lustfully at another person. He made no distinction between looking lustfully at a clothed person or looking lustfully at a nude person.

Jesus Christ did not say — nor did He imply — that nudity and sex were in themselves evil. It is not what one does that brings sin into the soul. Rather, it is why a person does what he or she does that causes sin to enter into his or her soul. This is true of all God’s laws. If an individual’s mind is filled with lustful, vulgar thoughts, then even if he or she were to look upon a fully clothed person he or she would be guilty of sin.

But if one’s mind is free of evil, vulgar points of view, then there is no sin whether he or she looks at a fully clothed person or even at another’s nude body. For such a person does not look upon his or her neighbor with a heart filled with lust. Such a child of God would see the beauty in all aspects of all God’s creations, including sex and the nude male and nude female body.

The Song of Songs uses the beauty of God’s creations and the beauty of both the male and female human body, mingled with the love and intimacy between a man and a woman, in order to describe the spiritual union of God and man. Through the writings of one of His prophets, our Lord wishes to manifest that even the greatest pleasures of this world are but inadequate analogies when using them to compare one’s spiritual union with God.

Since our Lord has inspired His servant to use the human body, and the other works of God’s creation, as tools to describe one’s spiritual union with God, then there is no reason for an individual to condemn either the nude male or nude female body or to condemn sex as evil. One should thank our Lord for giving these gifts to mankind. This is because the masterpiece of all God’s creations is the nude male and the nude female body.

Many individuals see nudity and sex as evil and vulgar because their own souls and minds are filled with lust. Before sin entered the world mankind was pure of heart and nudity and sex were not something of which a person was ashamed. Rather, nudity and sex were gratifying, delectable gifts, for this is why God gave them to mankind. Indeed, the quest for sexual pleasure has motivated much of mankind’s behavior. Further, what one culture defines as normal sexual relations another defines as abnormal and vice-versa.

Many individuals even condemn nudity and sex as the greatest sins of mankind. However, the sin is in their own minds for looking upon nudity and sex with lust in their own hearts. There is nothing wrong or sinful with either the nude male or the nude female body. Nor is there anything evil in sex. One should not forget that our Lord did not condemn to hell the harlots who participated in such. He said that they were entering into heaven.

Nor did our Lord condemn St. Mary Magdalen for her acts of adultery (Jn.8:7,10-11). Since Jesus Christ did not condemn nudity and sex, such therefore cannot be the great evils many are claiming them to be. It is the lewd, vile henchmen of Satan who have lowered nudity and sex to the point of obscenity, not the children of God. It is the evil, vulgar wolves-in-sheep’s clothing who have condemned nudity and sex as sinful, not the children of God.

Nudity and sex expressed as a part of nature and the creation process, or nudity and sex expressed as art and humanities are objects of God’s beauty. The Naked Majah by Francis Goya (1746 - 1828) and The David by Michelangelo Buonarroti are two excellent examples of such art. No true child of God would be ashamed of nudity and sex expressed as a part of nature and the creation or as art and the humanities.

Nor would a true child of God see evil, sin or anything unnatural in nudity and sex. This is true no matter how it is expressed — whether it is in a fresco, a painting, a sculpture, a photograph, a movie or whatever. This is because it is a manifestation of spiritual imperfection to be ashamed of nudity and sex or to see evil therein.

The children of God should not allow the Catholic and non-catholic pseudo-Christians to corrupt their minds with prohibitive points of view about the truths of nudity and sex. One should shed him or her self of the inhibiting views about nudity and sex that all the pseudo-Christians have brought into prevalence. One must free his or her mind of their captive ideas about nudity and sex before spiritual perfection can be obtained. For to believe in them is to believe in lies. Nudity and sex are a part of nature and objects of art and one should look upon the beauty found therein. One should look upon the beauty of all of God’s creations.

All this does not mean to insinuate that one may openly flaunt his or her nudity and sex to the whole world or that one can knowingly spread disease. It is the henchmen of the devil who unashamedly expose their nakedness to all. The children of God should not follow their example. They should not lower their beliefs about nudity and sex to the point of immorality that the henchmen of Satan have done.

Rather, the children of God should focus their beliefs between the extremes of the exposed indecency of the henchmen and the prohibitive oppression of the pseudo-Christians. Neither of these groups of individuals are teaching the truth about nudity and sex.

St. John mentions a sin unto death (1Jn.5:16-17). But from the above two verses from the gospels one knows that it is not a sin unto death to indulge in nudity and sex outside the marriage. For one must ask: If it is a mortal sin to have sex outside marriage, as the pseudo-Christians claim, then how could Jesus say that the harlots would be allowed into heaven? Nowhere did He even hint that nudity and sex outside the marriage was a mortal sin.

But our Lord did imply in the above verses that adult nudity and sex outside the marriage is materialisticand somewhat sinful. It has the potential of paralyzing the soul and rendering it impotent — the henchmen claim there is no sin at all in any form of nudity or sex — but it does not kill the soul. (There is more on sex and the impotence of the soul later.)

By placing one’s beliefs concerning nudity and sex between these two extremes, a true child of God will soon find that his or her beliefs concerning nudity and sex are centered on truth. Which is to say that as long as what one is doing is safe, consensual and non-exploitive among all parties involved, then there is no mortal sin involved. However, there may be paralysis or impotency of the soul if there is no love between those involved.

Finally, those acts of love performed by those who are joined as two in one flesh do not contribute to any paralysis or impotency of the soul. Such binds them stronger together.

What about adultery? In order to answer this one must seek to know what it is that marries two people. It is not the priest; he is only an officiator. It is not the Mother Church; She is only a witness. What marries two people is their love for each other and their commitment to each other. It does not matter whether or not they have their marriage blessed by a priest in the Sacrament of Matrimony (such is the better course of action). If there is no love and commitment, then there is no marriage.

If they truly love each other and share a common commitment, then it is our Lord who binds them two in one flesh when they consummate their love. The sacrament is just an official blessing of the union. Once they are joined two in one flesh — whether or not they receive the marriage sacrament — their acts of love for each other can only help them grow.

Finally, if there is love without commitment, then there is only cohabitation. This is somewhat materialistic and causes some paralysis and impotency of the soul but it does not kill the soul.

After defining what it is that makes up a marriage, one can define adultery. It is when a person has nudity and sex with someone with whom he or she is not bound two in one flesh. Which is to say that adultery is when a person is participating in nudity and sex with another person whom he or she does not love.

Adultery also includes those individuals who exploit nudity and sex with lies and deception for their own greed and selfish gain. This latter, besides being the sin of fornication, is also nudity and sex that is not safe, consensual and non-exploitive among all parties involved.

What follows henceforth is only one person’s interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis; it is one way of perceiving and understanding them. This interpretation is not meant to be dogmatic.

From the story one can assume that one of Adam’s children was named Cain (Gen.4:1) and another one was named Abel (Gen.4:2). Further, one can assume that Cain killed Abel (Gen.4:3-8) in what was probably some form of sibling rivalry (Gen.4:3-8). However, many theologians and scholars believe that this may be a story about the animosities that existed between ancient farmers and shepherds. They may be right.

But either way, this story is an admonition from God against killing someone. Life is so sacred that anyone who takes the life of another person will not go unpunished, such vindication coming from God, not man. That is why Cain made a prophecy that he would be a fugitive and a vagabond on earth and why God said that no one should kill Cain, Gen.4:9-16.

One may also learn that the taking of another’s life is an abomination to our Lord from other places in the Holy Bible: Ex.20:13; Wis.1:13; Ezch.33:11, Mt.26:52; Rev.13:10. There are other places throughout the Holy Scriptures where God warns that taking another’s life is abominable; one needs only to look for them to find them.

The reason that this vindication is so intense is because all crimes and sins that an individual can commit against his neighbor can be recompensed in some form except the taking of a life. It is because death is so final that one should not kill anyone, even in legalized capital punishment. Man should let God do the deciding about who is to live or die. He is the Author of Life, not man. Thus, capital punishment is wrong in the eyes of God. It is counter to His mercy.

After this story is told, the Yahwist gives the descendants of Cain. Although only six generations are mentioned, it is evident that a longer period of time had elapsed between Cain and Lamech. This is because Lamech and his children lived either during the Neolithic Age of developed agriculture (4800 - 3800 B.C.) or during the early part of the Bronze Age of regional development and florescence (3800 - 2000 B.C.). One knows this for Lamech’s son, Tubalcain, was a hammerer and artificer in every work of brass and iron (Gen.4:22).

It was during the Neolithic Age that bronze was first used and cast copper tools, axes and the first metallic weapons were made, and it was during the following Bronze Age that metalworking was perfected into an art. From this, one can establish that Lamech and his children lived in a more advanced culture than Adam and his children. Thus, there has to be more than six generations between the two families.

Never-the-less, Lamech killed a man and a boy in what appears to have been an accident or argument of some kind, because he killed a man to the wounding of myself, and a stripling to my own bruising, (Gen.4:23). Then fearing his own misfortune at the hands of another individual he increased the sevenfold vengeance for murder to seventy times sevenfold (Gen.4:24). This is a form of confirmation of our Lord’s prophecy that all those who take another person’s life will not escape God’s wrath or His justice.

After presenting the story of Cain, Abel, Lamech and the admonition against murder and capital punishment, the narration continues with the other children of Adam.

These two verses do not mean to insinuate that those people who preceded Enos did not pray or did not offer up any sacrifices to God. Rather, God reveals here that Enos, and all those who followed him, began to use more reverence in their worship and sacrificial rites.

Chapter five again gives the descendants of Adam but continues to list them until the time of Noe. One may question this and wonder how it is possible for anyone to live as long as these people lived. The same problem arises again in chapter eleven with the descendants of Noe down to the time of Abram.

However, these ages are not to be taken literally. This was an ancient literary device used to designate a long period of time. Ancient anthologies often gave great ages to men distributed according to a series of ten generations in order to convey the idea that a long period of time had elapsed. They also gave great ages to those ancestors who they honored and revered.

A wise man was given a greater age than someone who was not so wise; those people whom they respected the most were given the greatest age. Conversely, the average person and those who did nothing to gain lasting fame were given shorter lives and were not remembered by the tribes.

One thus has the interpretation for chapters five and eleven of Genesis. The ancient narrator is explaining through this type of age distribution that there was a long period of time from Adam to Noe and another long period of time from Noe to Abram. The various people mentioned are those who advanced the religious beliefs of the tribal lineage or in some way did something to make themselves prominent.

Of course, one must understand that there obviously were more than twenty prominent men between Adam, who began the tribe with his new High God belief, and Abram, the patriarch of the Christians, Jews and Islam. Obviously, the ancient narrator chose only the “top twenty” or most highly respected men for the most honored position in his epic.

It is interesting to note that among these series of ten generations Henoch, who lived only 365 years, stands out like an oak tree in a wheat field. Henoch was a humble, pius man who loved God very much and placed Him first in all his daily actions. With God’s help he brought his soul to a state of spiritual perfection by daily acknowledging his sinfulness and his unworthiness. That is why his age is equated with the number of days in one year.

Also, Henoch probably died with God and was buried with God in the same manner that Moses did later (Deut.34:5-6). That is why the narration says that he walked (traveled) with God, and was not seen (was seen no more): because God took (carried) him (Gen.5:24).

This is from the Latin: Ambulavitque cum Deo; et non apparuit: quia tulit eum Deus. One should note that it is fairly easy to perceive Henoch’s humility in this verse. However, if the verse is translated incorrectly — as one may find in many bibles — the interpretation is lost, and Henoch appears as just a nobody in a long, monotonous list of nobodies. But if the verse is translated correctly, then Henoch stands out as a great tree among all God’s children.

Alpha Omega

Carnal Knowledge