I'm interested in where this goes, but (and I'm sure Tim won't be in the least surprised by this) remain deeply sceptical (or skeptical - if you prefer the American version).
Tim brings trinitarian theology into his argument.
“Since I am love,” God said, “I want creatures who can love me.”
“We want creatures who can love each other, just like we do.” Said each of the Trinity to each other, “and love us the same way too.” They added.
That was how sex and marriage got built into creation from the start: difference and reproduction and love. Sex is modeled on the godhead (Gen 1:27)Which is poetic but highly problematic. Is Tim drawing a line from human sexual intimacy through to the interpenetration (believe it or not a theological term!) of the members of the Trinity? Does this mean that God is continually, well, um; no, wait, I don't really want to go there.
|Two men and a bird|
Christianity has a problem in that its founder was an unmarried man who was, moreover, born of a virgin. Its "second founder" (Paul) made some rather strange statements indicating that marriage was at best a second-rate option. And then the subsequent generation of believers moved in a direction very different from the one pro-family evangelicals promote today. Christianity was birthed in asceticism. It is entirely possible to "proof-text" a guilt-saturated Catholic position as easily as it is a guilt-in-denial-saturated Baptist one. The record indicates that the Christian religion has always been somewhat sex-averse.
At least, that's how I read the history. How you read the scriptures is more a matter of biblical topiary.
That isn't true of Judaism, but then Judaism doesn't have Paul to contend with.
But I'm happy to be convinced otherwise. You can follow Tim at Sansblogue.