On sexuality and the Bible


On this website I have left out a note “Sex Adventures of the Gurus” (Life and Soul Magazine, Chipping Norton, UK, December 2001, p. 36) and also a note in Swedish “Om Sai Baba” [“About Sai Baba”] (Sökaren, 1/2000, p. 15). Both were written because of discussions in the resp. magazines about several reports that Sai Baba would have devoted himself to homosexual and pedophile activities with a number of devotees. Similar reports have surfaced about other gurus.

Instead of the two notes, I here want to write my thoughts about sexuality and, especially, discuss the “Fall of Man” in the Bible and human sexuality. At the end I have added a note about Mary Magdalene and Jesus, for very actual reasons due to the DaVinci Code…


Sexuality and the Bible


But isn’t ’Elohim pluralis majestatis?

Babylonian sources

A hypothesis about the trees in Eden

Mary Magdalene and Jesus

A secret history of Christianity and the Church?

Spotless conception?

Two Christs?


[Note to the transliteration]



How come that sexuality has become a subject of such a great attention in the context of religion and faith? I suppose that it has to do with an age-old power game. Every normal human being will at least sometimes have sexual feelings (even if he or she doesn’t admit it), since these also have purely biological causes. If this is branded as sinful, one has an instrument of control. Almost each and every human being will then have at least potential (even if unconscious) feelings of shame and guilt and is more easily manipulated by power-hungry institutions. The fake morality of the church and declaring sex as sin have contributed to a perverse situation in our society, which has begun to be overcome only in later decades. It has caused much discord and suffering in marriages and families. Children have been raised with prudery and prejudice and with that become “prepared” for a marriage, which at least in the sexual sense couldn’t become very happy. And if sexuality doesn’t work in a marriage, its happiness is incomplete, maybe only apparent or pretended, or one has in resignation accepted something that one didn’t know could be much better. Obvious symptoms for this is that in our society advertisements and other things have such an effect through using at least hidden (or even open) hints on sexuality, and even more the remarkable extent of a manifold sex industry including even extreme forms of pornography. This could never has become as “successful” as it actually is without profiting from suppressed sexual needs in our society. Can all this really be conform with the Bible? (Cf. this article.) Still much worse is all the daily appearance of sexual violence and the horribly common abuse of children. There can be little doubt that one of the factors in the background of this is sexual frustration in a society with a double morality, which is not stated to excuse perpetrators in any way, but only to indicate that the social symptomatology involved is much more complex than we like to think and involves factors most of us don’t want to see...

I wish to state that I am a Christian. I regard myself as a Gnostic Christian. But it is obvious that the Churches’ version of “Christianity” differs from the true teachings of Jesus and has become a dear instrument of power, which in many cases even has become contradictory to Jesus’ teachings.


One basic historic reason for sexual suppression, bigotry and prudery on the whole will be related to suppression of women in the society. In a patriarch society, men will have wanted to be certain that their women wouldn’t bring a “cuckoo’s egg” into their nest, i.e. a child of another man. An immature man cannot love a child that isn’t his own, at least not if brought into the family in such a way (no matter that it could never be the innocent child’s fault). Therefore, rules and restrictions arouse in many societies designed to as far as possible prevent that women would have undue contact with other men than their “owner” (actually a more suitable word than “husband” in this context...). It even went so far that a woman wasn’t supposed to enjoy sex, since then she might also be tempted to enjoy it with another man. The extreme expression of this insanity is the so called “female circumcision” (better: “castration”) of removing the clitoris of young girls in certain primitive cultures, to make enjoying sex impossible for them as women. And yet the clitoris was given them by God, since He created them that way! If anything here is a sin, that certainly is one! Men in such cultures don’t understand how they actually indirectly castrate themselves that way, since they will never have much joy of sex with a woman who hates it... One symptom of this is how interested they are in Western women... but usually only for sex...


Another reason may well be the suppression of a divine principle in the human being. As Eastern tantrism teaches, and even certain Gnostic Christian groups did, sexuality is related to a creative energy in the human being that we have more or less hidden inside, since this is how God created us. Through spiritual sexuality, this energy can awaken and the human being reach an elevated spiritual state, a higher consciousness and at the end even enlightenment. This is, of course, not acceptable to a power-oriented religion, since awakened people will not participate in the power game. The sheep must remain sheep and not emancipate themselves from the worldly powers of the Church. Such a sexuality is an aspect of love, both human and divine love. Sexuality without love will rather drag us further down in the darkness of materialism. But when two persons join in love, things we are normally not aware of happen on a subtle level. Not only do the bodies join, but also the souls, and there is an exchange of subtle energies, which nurtures the souls of both. This can eventually lead to a spiritual awakening. It is, however, clear that sexuality in lovewill not automatically lead to a spiritualization, but it will be the other way around. Who is already on a spiritual path and practices loving sexuality can that way experience a spiritual enhancement. From the Christian aspect, this is also a situation in which Jesus words are valid: “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Mat. 18.20)! (So how could three” fit here? When applicable, the “third” would be a soul coming to incarnate, or a soul already there in case the woman is pregnant.)


The question if sexuality and the Bible has achieved a special actuality because of the “DaVinci Code” story and allegations that Jesus and Mary Magdalene would have been married and even had a child together. That means that Jesus would have had sex! He and Mary Magdalene would have lived together in sin! OR WOULD THEY? Maybe there is something else behind the veils of the stir-up this has caused... some far greater and deeper secret than the ordinary non-critical Bible-reader would ever get in his or her mind...



Sexuality and the Bible

There is a lot to say about how sexuality is connected with the Bible. But I will here stick to what is considered to be fundamental in this respect, the so-called “Fall of Man”. First Eve, then Adam, ate from the “tree of knowledge” and were, as a consequence, thrown out from Eden. The common interpretation according to the church dogma is that they had had sex with each other, and that that would be the “Fall of Man”. It is easy to show that this is nonsense.

But we first notice that there are two stories of creation in the Bible. Genesis 1 states that the gods – in Hebrew ’Elohim, which actually is the plural of ’Eloah, meaning god – created humans in their image. Here the plural is obvious in the Bible: “Let US make men in OUR image” (Gen. 1.26).  They were created man and woman, which means that also the woman was created in their image, and they should reproduce well. So they should have sex with each other…

I insist on using the word ’Elohim literally, as it is written, i.e. in plural! More about this below.

The second creation of man comes in Genesis 2. We here meet Jahveh ’Elohim – hence one of the gods, named Jahveh – who first creates Adam and then Eve. He quite clearly makes his own creation and he forbids Adam to eat from the “tree of knowledge”. This prohibition is stated in Gen. 2.17, but Eve is not created before Gen. 2.22. When the prohibition was given, Adam, therefore, didn’t have any possible partner for sexuality! Not even animals had yet been created in Eden. Adam was completely alone there. This contradicts the interpretation that sexuality would be to “eat from the tree of knowledge”.

It seems that such an interpretation may be justified by the fact that the word “know”, which has to do with knowledge, in the Bible also means “have intercourse with” (“And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived…”, Gen. 4.1). The word that is used in this double sense is yada‘. But the “tree of knowledge” is not called after yada‘. It is called ‘az ha-da‘at in the Hebrew text. Da‘at is another word for knowledge, wisdom, which has no double meaning. It cannot also mean intercourse. So here things don’t fit.

The common translation is (Gen. 2.17): “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (King James’ version), but the actual Hebrew words are merely “tree of the knowledge good and evil” (no “of”), which can also be interpreted as “tree of the knowledge for good and for evil”, i.e., a knowledge which can be used for the good or for the evil. In an earlier version of the Swedish Bible this was the translation used [1].

[One may comment that priests and clerics have often used their knowledge for the evil of controlling and manipulating people...]

Another important detail seems to have been overlooked during 2000 years. First Eve ate the fruit alone, then she gave it to Adam, and he ate it alone. How could that have to do with sexuality? In that case they would have “eaten the fruit” together. And it could be expected (even if not necessarily) that Eve would get pregnant at that moment, but she didn’t before Gen. 4.1.

It is then told that, through eating the fruit, their eyes opened and they saw what they shouldn’t see. Among other things, they saw that they were “naked”, which they should obviously not have seen. The gods said (again in plural in the Bible) “Behold, the man is become as one of US, to know good and evil” (Gen. 3.22). They obviously acquired some kind of wisdom this way! How can one acquire that from once having sexual intercourse? If that were so, human beings would be the wisest in the creation…

Adam and Eve were then sent out from Eden. There, they had two sons, who took women to be their wives. Where did these women come from? Could they have been their sisters? Could it be a case of incest? Of course not. Above it was remarked that the Bible has two stories about the creation of man. Outside of Eden there will, therefore, have been other human beings, resulting from the first creation, and that is where they had to go.

It is obvious that “eating from the tree of knowledge” can have nothing to do with sexuality. This fits “neither in the front nor in the back”, as the Germans say. The fruit of that tree must be something else, but what?


It is interesting to note that the “tree of life” in the Hebrew text is actually called “tree of [the] lives”, ‘az ha-chayiym, since chayiym is the plural of chai = “life” (ha = “the”).




  1. The prohibition to eat from the Tree of Knowledge is stated before Adam had any possible sex partner, even before God had decided to create Eve.
  2. They “ate from the tree” separately. Sex isn’t something you have for yourself alone (except in the case of masturbation, which may hardly be called “sex”, or more correctly: “sexual union”). The sexual union is something two persons do together. Otherwise Eve could be expected to become pregnant already at that occasion.
  3. The Hebrew word for “knowledge” here is another one than the word that in a double sense also means “intercourse”.
  4. Why should Genesis 1 command to have sex (and thus multiply) and Genesis 2 forbid it?
  5. Put in another way: Why should God give us sexual organs and then forbid us to use them?
  6. Why should God give the woman a clitoris and then forbid her to enjoy sex? Its only function is to arouse feelings of pleasure and trigger orgasm. It is not needed for procreation. Women without a clitoris can have children just like any other woman does. (See below.)


But isn’t ’Elohim pluralis majestatis?

The first sentence in the Bible reads, in the common translation: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”. The Hebrew word here translated as God is ’Elohim. It is a linguistic fact that no-one can deny that the word is plural and literally means “gods”. One has, therefore, wanted to explain this as pluralis majestatis. This doesn’t seem to be something common in Hebrew. It rather looks like an excuse for sweeping a painful question under the carpet…

In Hebrew, the sentence reads: Bere’shiyt bara’ ’Elohim ’et ha shamayim ve-’et ha ’arez. Some want to translate like this: “In the beginning the gods created the heaven and the earth”, but this doesn’t fit, because the verb bara’ = “create” is in singular. Furthermore, the word for “heaven”, shamay, is also in plural: Shamayim. But there is a solution of the problem.

According to cabbalistic sources the word bere’shiyt doesn’t only mean “beginning”, but it can also mean “the first one”, the first entity that ever was, the highest God. The little word ’et can be regarded as an accusative particle, but can also be translated as “with” (in ve-’et, ve means “and”, hence “and with”). We now arrive at the following translation, which fits grammatically: “The First One created the gods [together] with the heavens and with the earth”. This translation then talks about an original creator, who first created “gods” and cosmic worlds, one of which is the earth. According to Gen. 2, Jahveh would be one of these gods, the ’Elohim. The ’Elohim are by many regarded as gods of creation, who in their turn created other beings – men, animals and plants, like Jahveh did.

The conventional and “dogmatically approved” translation of bere’shiyt is based on be = “in, at” and re’shiyt = “beginning”. But according to dictionaries (such as Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon) re’shiyt also means “the first (of its kind)” and be can also mean a reference to the “origin”. Thus bere’shiyt can also be understood as a somewhat tautological expression meaning “the original first one” (or “the very first one”). A cabbalistic interpretation is that of a combination of beyt = “house, abode” and the word re’sh = “the highest one, the Lord”, placed inside beyt (between be and yt). This is said to mean “the Lord in His abode”.

But there are more noticeable things in the sentence. If one still wants to translate as “in ... beginning” it should be “in A beginning” and not “in THE beginning” (which would have to be bare’shiyt – a contraction of be-ha-re’shiyt – and not bere’shiyt). That may seem to make little difference, but it is actually stated in an undetermined sense, almost as if there had been more than one beginning (i.e., “in one of the beginnings”). Or it could be a genitive, like “in the beginning of” God’s creation. This, too, seems to make little difference, but the verb “create” would then have to be in another grammatical form [1]. Such little inconsistencies again disappear if we accept the cabbalistic suggestion that bere’shiyt could be understood to mean “the first one”.



Babylonian sources

In the course of the 19th century, one managed to decipher the clay plates with cuneiform writing found in Mesopotamia (later, further plates were found). A Babylonian story of creation appeared, which after the first two words in it is usually called Enûma elish (“When above”). This story of creation at many places has striking similarities to the one in the Bible. Linguists and ethnologists who deal with this in most cases are of the opinion that the version in the Bible is an abbreviated and “hebrewified” version of the Babylonian one. Churches and also Rabbis want to deny that and rather don’t want to have anything to do with it.

In Enûma elish it is described how a number of gods fought wars in cosmic worlds, and how thereby the earth was formed. They then created human beings on earth. Other clay plates describe that the first attempts failed. But then the experiments were successful and man was created. Created to serve the gods. [2]

These gods had revolted against the highest god, the original creator Apsû. He had, together with his consort, the original mother and goddess Tiâmat, created the first gods, who turned away from them and then made their own creations. Apsû and Tiâmat are “painted in black” and described as evil. But it would certainly be very remarkable if the original creator couple would be evil! This must be seen in connection with the revolt of the created gods against them, striving for independence.

Don’t we here see a more original version of the “Fall of Man (Gods)”? Isn’t actually the revolt against Apsû and Tiâmat – who are clearly described as the first entities, which ever were – the real “Fall”? Apsû and Tiâmat may, by the way, be regarded as the male and female side of the original creator. Then the gods they created established religions on earth to make man believe that they would be the original creators, and especially one of them. In the Jewish-Christian religion, this one is called Jahveh.

Another painful fact for theology is that research into the history of religions has in the later decades clearly revealed that the original Hebrew religion wasn’t monotheistic, but began to be so in the Egyptian exile [3]. In the beginning, there were several gods and goddesses. The highest god is there called ’El ‘Eliyon. One of his sons is Jahveh, who has a consort, the goddess ’Asherah. In monotheistic-patriarch attempts ’Asherah was later “forbidden” in the religion. Later books of the Bible state that it would be forbidden to plant a tree at Jahveh’s altar (Deut. 16,21, where the Hebrew text has ’asherah). ’Asherah’s symbol is a tree. The word ’asherah occurs more than 40 times in the Bible, but is commonly translated as “tree” or “grove”. Hence, it became forbidden to put up an image or a symbol of ’Asherah at the altar of Jahveh. (It is remarkable that the word ’asherah appears in the Bible both as male and as female: When it is in the male form, it obviously refers to the symbol of the goddess, when it is female to the goddess herself.)



A hypothesis about the trees in Eden

There have been astonishingly few attempts to seek an explanation of what the trees in Eden would be. Some want to explain the “tree of life” as the date palm, since dates are important as nutrition in the Middle East. This appears too naïve… and is hard to fit with the interpretation of the “tree of knowledge” in its popular explanation as sexuality. The latter explanation fits so well in a power-game of the Churches that one likes to keep it that way.

In order to find an interpretation, which makes more sense I searched several Hebrew dictionaries. The word ‘az is commonly translated as “tree” or “wood”. Only few dictionaries also mention the translation as “branch”. This stroke my mind. A branch is actually a tree branch, but the word can also be used for a branching of a path or road. Could the two trees have to do with two possible paths of life?

Interestingly, one dictionary mentions that ‘az is etymologically related to the Greek word ozos, which means “branch”. But only few Hebrew dictionaries directly state “branch” as an alternative translation.

If we now adopt that meaning of the word, one may establish the following hypothesis. To “eat from the tree of life” would then mean a life path, one branch of two possible life paths, which involves living out of intuition, feeling and emotion, out of “the heart”. The path of the life-giving soul. To “eat from the tree of knowledge” would then mean to walk another life path on which we live out of our rational mind and the ego, suppressing the soul-self to become an unconscious self. The path of the cold ratio. This is, of course, speculative but definitely makes more sense than the “sexual” misinterpretation of the “tree of knowledge”.

(It has been suggested that “eating from the tree of life” would be living from spiritual food, or rather energies, an “eating from the tree of knowledge” would be living from physical food. It seems difficult to find a logical association of the latter to “knowledge”, and if we were supposed to live from spiritual energies, why were we created with a digestive system?)



Mary Magdalene and Jesus

First there is the allegation that Mary Magdalene would have been a prostitute. There is nothing in the Bible that gives evidence that she and the prostitute mentioned in Luke 7.36-50 would be the same person. The first who claimed that they would be the same, apparently in an effort to discredit Mary Magdalene, was the pope Gregor I in 591. In 1969 the Church at the Second Vatican Council declared this to be a mistake and withdrew from such a linkage.

The same person or not: Note that Jesus forgave the prostitute. How can we then want to be so hypocritical that we would then condemn a person He forgave? But this a side issue, since they will not be the same person.

Since God (or the gods...) created us man and woman and gave us sexual organs it is obvious that sexuality is God-given and actually divine. It can, of course, be abused (almost anything can be abused). But there can be no abuse in enjoying it – why should otherwise God have given the woman a clitoris? She doesn’t necessarily need it (its only purpose seems to be to enable the orgasm) since she could become pregnant without enjoying sex, but the man would hardly make a woman pregnant without enjoying it. Obviously, God wants us to enjoy the sexual union. That is not an abuse. The greatest abuse is, however, when one of the two is forced to participate in it against her or his will. True sex is an act of love, a union in love. Sex only for joy alone is not really what it should be, but if both participate voluntarily and no one is forced to, what can be wrong with it then? What harm would that cause? Of course, sex could become an addiction. Then, again, it becomes wrong or abusive. But the sexual union in mutual love can never be wrong. Love is the criterion and the key!

So why should we want to “castrate” Jesus and expect Him to behave like a eunuch? What would be lost to Christianity if He would have been married? Nothing! There is the idea that the marriage in Kana (John 2.1-11) was actually his own marriage to Mary Magdalene. There is no contradiction to that in the Bible, but this remains a possible interpretation. And if we allow for that possibility, why should they not have had children?


There are indications in just a few apocryphal texts that Mary Magdalene and Jesus would have been a couple. One of them is the Gospel of Philippus. Theologians date this Gospel to the later first or early second century and claim that it, therefore, must be invented, since it was written too late. This only proves one thing: That the oldest manuscript we still have could be dated to around the year 200, that is: The paper (or rather papyrus)  on which it is written. It doesn’t disprove that the information in it could be much older – either handed down in an oral tradition, or contained in still earlier texts, which have been lost. Manuscript dating offers no proof that the contents in itself is wrong.

Tradition has it that Mary Magdalene, her and Jesus’ daughter and a few others had escaped from Israel in a boat or small ship and after a long journey gone ashore in the Camargue in Southern France, where to day a town is named after them: Les-Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer (see “History” > The Provençal Legend on the webpage). Or maybe Mary Magdalene was still pregnant when they arrived. This would then be the beginning of a Jesus blood line in Southern France. Is this an invention? Who can really prove that it is? What would be so horrible if it would be true?

As I have discussed in my book Reincarnation, Christianity and the Dogma of the Church the liturgy of the Church doesn’t have one single prayer that Christ should soon return! It looks like the Church doesn’t want him to return, since that would be the end of its power. It would have to hand over the power to Him and be scolded by Him for all the wrong it has done. “We enjoy the power, Christ can wait”…

So if there actually is a blood-line of genes, which originated from Jesus, the Church would probably want to extinguish it!

In the South of France there was a big and important Christian community, the Cathars. Their view of the world differed a lot from the one of the Church, and they even taught reincarnation. They strictly adhered to Jesus’ teachings. For example, they took His words “Thoult shalt not kill” so literally, that they were vegetarians. In the 13th century they were completely eradicated in a genocide organized by the Church, a holocaust against the Cathars. The motivation was that they would have been “heretics”. But why such a complete genocide against them, to a much larger extent than against any other “heretics”? Could a secret motivation be that one actually wanted to eradicate a Jesus blood-line, which could be supposed to exist among the Cathars?

Wouldn’t it be a very clever strategy if Jesus, who was killed by adversaries, secretly left a blood-line they couldn’t really fight? Like his parents escaped Herod’s child-slaughtering through going to Egypt, his genes escaped the adversaries “through going to France” and from there slowly spread in a part of humanity. Wouldn’t that be a really clever divine strategy, indeed? Would the second coming of Christ be expected through someone carrying His genes? Not necessarily but possibly. Is that what the Church didn’t want to happen (see my above-mentioned book)?

The extraordinarily complete holocaust against the Cathars (no Cathar was left to survive – not even a child, a woman nor an old man), under the excuse of “heresy” – one such “heresy” being their belief in reincarnation! – to me seems to rather confirm such ideas of a secret Jesus blood-line in a part of humanity, since this could make much sense to the perpetrators as a secret motivation… and there is much hope that the attempt to eradicate His blood-line wasn’t 100 % effective… that yet some of it survived and is here still to day… and that the future will show what good will come out of it…

As concerns sexuality, it has been claimed that the Cathars were against it. It isn’t that simple as it has been put by some who advocate abstinence. The Cathars taught reincarnation and that this world is on the dark side of a duality. Our aim should be to no more have to be in this world. Sexuality brings forth new bodies for souls to reincarnate in, and the real idea behind their attitude to sexuality is that we should give souls less opportunities to reincarnate in this world!




A secret history of Christianity and the Church?

In view of the developments as they have actually been throughout 2000 years, the following hypothesis seems probable or at least possible.

Negative powers were largely in control of humanity 2000 years ago. Then Jesus came and began to teach a new spirituality, a new religious view, which slowly revealed information about such a negative control of humanity and showed a way to freedom. The negative powers were very disturbed about this and, manipulating the high priest Kaiphas, succeeded in having Jesus killed. Their hope was that after that the movement he had started would slowly dissolve and disappear. But the contrary occurred. The movement grew stronger. The death of Jesus effectively became a sacrifice that gave much more power to that movement. So the negative powers developed a clever strategy. They wanted to change Christianity to serve their own interest. First, they infiltrated the early Christianity, using Paul – a person who had never known Jesus and had started as a persecutor of Christians – as a probably more or less unconscious instrument for reshaping Christianity to a new form. Paulinian Christianity gradually took power over Christian Gnosticism.  Through the emperor Constantine, the power of the Paulinian (pseudo-)Christianity was established as a Church. The more original Gnostic Christianity became declared as heresy. A Church that with brute power cracked down on opponents and competitive movements through murderous crusades, inquisition, burning of “witches”, promoting wars, etc., and so on, and so forth…, in actions which ran contrary to Jesus’ teachings! The negative powers had succeeded in their strategy… and these powers still rule much of humanity…

In view of this hypothetical “secret history”, the above discussion of a possible connection between the holocaust against the Cathars and a possible bloodline of Jesus makes still more sense…


As a further hypothesis we may, in the view of this, assume that the form of Christianity, which was the nearest to the original teachings of Jesus, was the mainstream of the Gnostic Christianity. It was at least not later than the Paulinian Christianity and it arose nearly 300 years earlier than the Dogma of the Church, which was founded at the Council of Nicaea in 325. The Cathar version of Gnostic Christianity might have been the most real Christianity we have ever had... The world view of Gnostic Christianity, which taught reincarnation, fits best to phenomena like spontaneous memories of past lives and regression experiences.


See the recently published article http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_50.htm



Spotless conception?

Mary is said to have received Jesus through a “spotless conception” through the Holy Spirit. However, the Bible testifies that Jesus had brothers – see Acts 1,14: These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren” and Gal 1,19: “But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother”! Hence she obviously also had “spotted conceptions” ... How can a derailed theology consider a normal conception as “spotted”? Mary obviously had sex several times and conceived these brothers, and yet she is considered to be “pure and spotless”. This must then be valid as well for all women who conceive in love!



Two Christs?

Maybe there are two Christs. The real one, who appeared to us incarnated as Jesus, and a Pseudo-Christ created by the Dogma, who should serve the politics of a profanized Church. The New book by the Pope: Jesus of Nazareth, who as he began to write it may still have been Joseph Ratzinger, denies as expected a relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus. This will also be true – in relation to the second Jesus, the one created by the Dogma, and maybe only for him...


“You see better with the heart. The essential is invisible to the eyes.”

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry: The Little Prince, Chapter XXI




1.   Åke Lundqvist: Vildåsnans törst, Albert Bonniers, Falun, 2006 (a Swedish book about the Hebrew Bible).

2.      Alexander Heidel: The Babylonian Genesis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2nd ed. 1960.

3.     Ein Gott Allein?, lectures at a Colloquium ed. by Walter Dietrich and Martin A. Klopfenstein, Universitätsverlag, Freiburg (Switzerland), 1994.




[Note: In transliteration from Hebrew is used as a notation for the letter ’aleph and as a notation for the letter ‘ayin. Furthermore the transliteration is done according to the letters in the corresponding Hebrew word and not, as otherwise common, quite phonetically. Therefore, e.g.: bere’shiyt and not bere’shīt with a long “i”, i.e. “ee”, since the word in Hebrew writing actually has the combination “iy”, i.e. a vowel “i” assigned to the previous letter followed by the consonant “y” as a sign for the prolongation of the “i” sound.]





One strange and quite naïve website touching this subject is “Ambrosian!”, which advocates:


Yet the author (who simply calls himself “Ambrosian!” and has no impressum on his webpage, hiding in anonymity) also states this about masturbation as an answer to a question in his “Guestbook I”:


He, furthermore, advocates “technological procreation”, from his “Guest Book II”:


How far can you get from Gods creation? Replace it with a luciferian way? Produce zombies, biorobots, instead of real humans? This would fit as a motive for a science-fiction horror movie... such as “Invasion of the Artificial Freaks”...

To me, this appears symptomatic of a person having serious sexual inhibitions as a result of some past traumatization, or of being brought up in an atmosphere of sexual bigotry, in which sex was branded as being dirty and sinful... In any case the quoted ideas don’t make real sense together.


He wants to explain the Tree of Knowledge as follows (see here):

“The Bible uses the phrase ‘Be fruitful and multiply’ numerous times. ... To be ‘fruitful’ means to be productive ... and have children. The bible uses ‘fruitful’ in this context to mean ‘have sex.’ Can it have a similar meaning when referring to the ‘forbidden fruit’ of the tree of knowledge? It can clearly be inferred to have the same meaning. So we can agree at this time that eating the ‘forbidden fruit’ from the tree of knowledge was in fact the sexual act.”

We can hardly agree, this is a way of twisting things to make them fit... The Bible in Genesis 1 uses a word that has in English been translated as “be fruitful”. The Hebrew word is phru, which actually means “flourish”, i.e. to thrive, to prosper, and doesn’t have any direct relation to “fruit”. It seems to fit in the translation, but not really in the original text. It would furthermore be strange that Genesis 1 would demand from us to have sex while Genesis 2 would forbid it... if this interpretation were true...

Now I hope that not someone will suggest that “phru sounds like fruit”. That would be an amateurish “etymology”, an unscientific lack of linguistic understanding. Then we could also (by the same logic) claim that “six” sounds like “sex”, and that children shouldn’t use that word, but be taught to count: one, two, three, four, five, bad, seven, eight...


Another organization which advocates what one might call “mental castration” is Celibrate. They mostly refer to Paul, who devaluated women in a way Jesus never did. They also quote some verses in which Jesus seems to teach celibacy, but leave those out in which he does not, such as Mathew 19.4-8. As a comment to Matthew 19.10-12 they claim: “some are made that way [eunuchs] by men (renounce sex due to bad or traumatic experiences, or due to the lurid way in which sex is portrayed in present day society)”. The remark in parenthesis refers to a pathological condition of being traumatized by a bad experience and the “lurid way” certainly would include bigotry in the education and upbringing of children... We were not created “eunuchs”, but some became such due to whatever circumstances.


Of course, everyone is free and justified in making his or her own choice. Jesus words clearly indicate that we should respect the persons choice, but hardly more than that. However, it seems that they are not few who are mislead in the motivation... In the case of a traumatization in the past, this is a condition that can be healed so that a fulfilled partnership becomes possible (if a partnership relation is something the person wants and he or she doesnt prefer to be single, which is in that a case also a choice to be respected).