Sacred Sex, Celibacy and the New Testament Part 1: Matthew 19:3–12

Jesus Christ taught about divorce, marriage, and celibacy in Matthew 19:3–12. Jewish leaders called Pharisees challenged Christ about divorce laws. Christ responded with a powerful teaching about marriage and sex:

[3] Some Pharisees came to him [Jesus], and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?" [4] He answered, "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' [5] and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? [6] So they are no longer two, but one flesh." Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.'' [7] They said to him, "Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?" [8] He said to them, "It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but at the beginning it was not so. [9] And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery."

[10] His disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." [11] But he said to them, "Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. [12] For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can." (Matthew 19:3–12)

During the days of Christ, Jews debated about the two rabbinical views of divorce taught in the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai. Hillel taught that a Jewish husband could divorce his wife for any reason and Shammai taught a husband could divorce his wife only in the case of a sexually immorality. Likewise, in the case of divorce, Christ sided with the school of Shammai.

Christ also used this opportunity to teach about marriage. He referred to Genesis 1:27 and said that God made humans both male and female. Then he referred to Genesis 2:24 and said a man should leave his parents and join his wife to become one flesh, which refers to marriage and sexual union between a husband and wife. Based on these precedences, Christ proclaimed that nobody should divorce.

The Pharisees then asked why Moses commanded to give certificates of divorce. Christ replied that the biblical law about certificates of divorce was written for the hard-hearted Israelites. That biblical law was an accommodation apart from the biblical model taught in Genesis 1—2. Christ then clarified that nobody should divorce his spouse except for a severe violation such as adultery. Christ also taught that remarriage after divorce for a non-severe violation was adultery. For example, a no-fault divorce is invalid in the eyes of God while God requires such a divorcee to remain faithful to his spouse.

This strictness alarmed Christ's disciples. They suggested to Christ that abstinence from marriage was better than the risks of a disappointing marriage. Christ then taught about the option of deliberate lifelong celibacy while referring to three types of eunuchs: (1) males born as eunuchs, (2) males involuntarily made into eunuchs by castration, and (3) males choosing the life of a eunuch for God's kingdom.

The term "eunuch" in ancient Jewish tradition referred to (1) pagan males castrated in childhood to later to serve in harems without sexual temptation, (2) males with presumed congenital infertility, and (3) various governmental officials who could enjoy marriage.1 Christ first referred to males born as eunuchs: that is, males with presumed congenital infertility. He second referred to castrated males. He third figuratively referred to normal males deliberately choosing lifelong celibacy to fully serve in God's kingdom.

Christ's discussion of eunuchs focused on normal males who choose lifelong celibacy to fully serve in God's kingdom. Given the ancient context that Jews prohibited castration,2 Christ never suggested the concept of literal self-castration. Instead, he referred to Jews who choose lifelong celibacy to fully serve God.3

Christ taught paradoxes about marriage. First, divorce is impermissible because God made the husband and wife one that should never separate, but extreme violations make divorce permissible. Second, God commands humans to leave their parents and marry, but lifelong celibacy is also an option from God. What is more, Christ chose lifelong celibacy.
__________
1. "Eunuch," accessed May 28, 2012, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5904-eunuch.
2. "Castration," accessed May 28, 2012, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0004_0_04056.html.
3. For example, the Jewish sect called the Essenes avoided marriage as much as possible. See "Essenes," accessed May 28, 2012, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5867-essenes.



Copyright © 2012 James Edward Goetz

New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

The Impossibility of Infinitely Elapsed Planck Times

Observation indicates that a flat universe with an incomplete past (1) begins, (2) endlessly expands, and (3) forever develops a finite age. Nothing ever binds the continuous aging of a flat universe while the universe endlessly develops a finite age. Despite an infinite number of Planck time coordinates independent of phenomena, an infinite number of Planck times will never elapse in a single lineage. Likewise, an infinite number of Planck times have never elapsed in a single lineage. Time and the universe could not have been past eternal.

Imagining time travel to any past event in a world with an eternal past also helps to explain the impossibility of infinitely elapsed time. For example, if a time traveler in a world with an eternal past could survive a two-minute journey in a wormhole to any past event, then the time traveler could never possibly travel an infinite number of Planck times but only possibly travel to time coordinates with real values. The apparent unlimited time travel ability would never cover an infinite number of Planck times.

The observations of limits for the elapse of time in time travel and the aging of a flat universe exclude the possibility of all cosmology models with a past infinite number of Planck times. For example, Mithani and Vilenkin [1] recently refuted three categories of models with an eternal past: (1) past eternal inflation, (2) cyclic evolution, and (3) emergence from eternal static seed. Apart from reasons supported by Mithani and Vilenkin, those models also fail on the grounds that infinitely elapsed time is impossible.

Susskind [2] responded to Mithani and Vilenkin by arguing that the universe is past eternal. He supported his argument by using an analogy of a semi-infinite one-dimensional landscape with an incomplete past and an infinite population size of people. However, Susskind's semi-infinite landscape falsely analogizes a universe/multiverse with an incomplete past except for a multiverse with at least one node that simultaneously branches into an infinite number of branches, which Susskind does not model. Apart from the respective exception, an indefinitely branching multiverse with an incomplete past will never have a landscape with a semi-infinite size. Susskind's assumption of a semi-infinite landscape is invalid.

In sum, any scientific model of cosmology must have an incomplete past: that is, a beginning. And all apparent merits in cosmology models that include an infinite elapse of time are futile unless the merits are transferable to models with an incomplete past.

References
1. A. Mithani and A. Vilenkin, "Did the universe have a beginning?," arXiv:1204.4658 [hep-th]
2. Leonard Susskind, "Was there a beginning?," arXiv:1204.5385 [hep-th].


Copyright © 2012 James Edward Goetz

An Infinite Elapse of Time is Impossible and Unscientific

This article evaluates the concept of an infinite lapse/passage of time and concludes that an infinite lapse of time is impossible, which was proposed in the sixth century AD by John Philoponus. Likewise, models of cosmology that require infinitely lapsed time such as models of a genuinely cyclic universe or a multiverse with past eternal vacuum energy are impossible and unscientific.

Modern day observation of a flat universe indicates that a flat universe endlessly ages and always has a finite age. For example, a flat universe has a potential infinite age and a continuously increasing finite age. Nothing ever stops the aging of the universe while the universe endlessly has a finite age. Despite a potential infinite age, an actual infinite age never occurs.

The observed impossibility of an infinite lapse of time indicates the impossibility of infinitely lapsed time. Likewise, all scientific hypotheses of cosmology should exclude the possibility of infinitely lapsed time. For example, the technical definition of a "cyclic universe" implies an infinite number of past cycles. This indicates that the concept of a cyclic universe is unscientific, regardless of widely published papers in scientific journals about cyclic models. Other concepts widely published in scientific journals that require an unscientific infinitely lapsed time include "eternal inflation" with no beginning.

Some scholars skirt around the impossibility of infinitely lapsed time and propose the philosophical concept of eternalism, which holds that future phenomena already exist. For example, the universe is uncaused with absolutely no distinction between the past, present, and future while all appearance of lapsed time and sequential events are an illusion. This concept of radical simultaneousness for all supposedly past, present, and future events disputes the impossibility of an apparent infinite lapse of time but at the expense of rejecting the concept of lapsed time. Also, rejecting the concept of lapsed time disputes every theory involving cause and effect, which includes the concept of scientific theory. In this case, perhaps nobody can disprove eternalism while the appearance of lapsed time is merely an illusion, but such philosophical theories are incompatible with the concept of science.

My argument about the impossibility of infinitely lapsed time sometimes prompts debate about Zeno's fifth century BC paradoxes of infinity. Zeno pointed out problems with the concept of infinity while attempting to support the nonexistence of motion and change, which is still in vogue today with the philosophical eternalism mentioned above. For example, Zeno said that all apparently finite lengths such as a cubit are infinitely divisible and likewise nothing has actually traveled the length of a cubit. But this amusing paradox never explains observations of objects that travel a cubit.

In sum, this brief paper proposes that the science of cosmology excludes impossible concepts such as infinitely lapsed time and limits itself to inference based on scientific observation.



Updated with minor corrections on 5/5/2012

Copyright © 2012 James Edward Goetz

First Quasi-Cause: Uncaused Timeless Nature

INTRODUCTION
John Philoponus, a Christian philosopher, scientist, and theologian in the sixth century, challenged Aristotle's theory of infinitely elapsed time.1 Philoponus argued that infinite time could never have elapsed, so elapsed time needed a finite origin. Philoponus also modified Aristotle's cosmological argument of a Prime Mover / First Cause by saying that the First Cause was originally timeless, which this essay calls a timeless cosmological argument. Since the time of Philoponus, numerous scholars developed timeless cosmological arguments.2 Furthermore, Immanuel Kant in his 1781/1787 Critique of Pure Reason noted that a timeless cause of elapsed time is empirically irrational because both cause and effect must exist within elapsed time.3 For example, How could something exist before elapsed time when the notions of before and after require elapsed time? This brief article responds to Kant's conundrum about original timelessness and the finite origin of elapsed time by clarifying that passage of time originated from not the first cause but the first quasi-cause. This piece also (1) explores various positivist and theistic constructions of the first quasi-cause and (2) conjectures monotheism.

The term first quasi-cause indicates that not a cause within elapsed time but a timeless quasi-cause began elapsed time. Furthermore, the first quasi-cause is the uncaused timeless nature. Also, the observed spacetime continuum might be the universe or a verse within a multiverse, while the universe or multiverse necessarily has a finite elapsed time.

INFINITY AND BEYOND
The conundrum of time compares to a never-ending clock. For example, assuming the observed spacetime continuum began fourteen billion years ago and the continuum never ends with a Big Crunch or Big Rip,4 then the continuum always continues with an ever-increasing finite age.

Similarly, there could not have been infinitely elapsed time. For example, if there was infinitely elapsed time, then infinitely elapsed time would precede every point in continuum history while infinitely elapsed time could never exist for any point in history to exist. Likewise, there was no (1) infinite past chronology of vacuum fluctuations or (2) infinite past cycles in a cyclic universe.

Some scholars stated to me in personal communication that infinitely elapsed time is possible because of different theories of time. For example, various philosophers challenge all empirical observations of cause and effect while proposing that all appearance of such sequences is essentially an illusion in an eternalist/block universe. Such eternalist theories ultimately propose radical simultaneousness of all supposedly past, present and future events while denying all distinction between the past, present, and future.5 This rejection of sequences disputes the impossibility of an apparent infinite elapsed time, but at the expense of rejecting the notion of elapsed time. Also, rejecting the notion of elapsed time incidentally disputes every theory involving cause and effect, which includes all scientific theory. In this case, nobody can possibly disprove that the universe is an eternal block while the appearance of elapsed time is merely an illusion, but such philosophical theories are incompatible with the notion of science.

NATURE OF TIMELESSNESS
As stated in the introduction, this theory proposes that the first quasi-cause is the uncaused timeless nature. Timelessness is changelessness such as absolute inactivity or absolute simultaneousness of all activity in a changeless unit. For example, timelessness has no sequence of phenomena that are empirically observed in waves, particles, and vacuum fluctuations. Likewise, since observed spatial dimensions inevitably have sequences of phenomena, then a timeless nature evidently has no spatial dimensions comparable to observed space. In other words, a timeless nature is a dimensionless nature beyond empirical observation. The uncaused timeless nature is an extraordinary nature in that it has no dimensions and no sequence of phenomena while it is able to generate the beginning of time.

The observed spacetime continuum might have originated from a dimensionless substrate. Another possibility is that the observed spacetime continuum is a verse preceded by dimensionality within a multiverse while the spacetime of the multiverse originated from a dimensionless substrate. In any case, the apparently fine-tuned spacetime continuum that enables DNA-based life had inexplicably originated from no dimensions.6

Positivist options for analyzing dimensionless origins include (1) continuing the exploration of the impossible assumption of infinite elapsed time with an infinite chronology of vacuum fluctuations or infinite cycles in a cyclic universe and (2) insistence that elapsed time began from inanimate timelessness.7

Objective analysis indicates the uncaused nature's constitution and ability is extraordinary in comparison to empirically observed nature. This extraordinariness such as dimensionless nature with the ability to generate the passage of time and life-enabling space justifies the reasonableness of calling the uncaused nature a supernature. The extraordinariness of this supernature also justifies a reasonable conjecture that the uncaused nature is not inanimate supernature but deity with will.

Deity with will has knowledge and power. Some might debate if the uncaused deity is (1) God with omniscience (all knowledge) and omnipotence (all power) or (2) a potentially conquerable deity with finite knowledge and finite power. For example, key characteristics of omniscience include exhaustive self-awareness and knowledge of all possibilities (natural knowledge), while the key characteristic of omnipotence is unlimited power constrained only by consistency. In this case, God with omniscience and omnipotence is able to generate the beginning of time and life-enabling space. However, an uncaused finite deity might have no ability to manage the unlimited knowledge of all possibilities and never generate the beginning of time. Likewise, the problems faced by finite deity justify a reasonable conjecture that God generated the beginning of time and life-enabling space.

Stay tuned for a follow-up article on theodicy—that is, the problem of evil.

__________

1. Wildberg, Christian. 2007. "John Philoponus." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philoponus/.
2. Reichenbach, Bruce. 2008 "Cosmological Argument." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/.
3. Williams, Garrath. 2009. "Kant's Account of Reason." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-reason/.
4. See Big Crunch and Big Rip in Caldwell, Robert R., Marc Kamionkowski and Nevin N. Weinberg. 2003. "Phantom Energy and Cosmic Doomsday." http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302506.
5. See Markosian, Ned. 2008. "Time." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/.
6. See "Cosmic Fine-Tuning" in Ratzsch, Del. 2010. "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/.
7. The first edition of this paragraph included a mistaken interpretation of a physics article.

Major Revision 4/26/2012, Minor Revision 8/14/2012



Copyright © 2011, 2012 James Edward Goetz