In fact, I have not heard of anyone in the early church who appeared to have had any children or a spouse. ![]() After all, none of the disciples had children or spouses. If one does not have children, they should not have children and thus have no need of or purpose for marriage and are to avoid it. It's for two sinners who have fallen prey to lust and animalistic urges and had a child to do right by it and raise it so as to help it find Jesus (much like Victor Frankenstein may have been able to "redeem" himself in a sense had he tried to act as a loving Christian father to his helpless "child" rather than leaving it to the cruelty of the world). It is not a road to sex and children, it is simply the redemption for it. It seems to me that this is what marriage is really for. Now, we can all agree that Frankenstein ought not have played God and tried creating a human life in the first place, and that at the very least he could've tried to be responsible and "clean up his mess" by acting as the father and protector of the being. So too, many children are born with genetic defects and deformities, minor or severe, and these also cast a stumbling block in their way.Įven sex the way we're told it's meant to be done is a form of playing God, thinking you can create that perfect being and be the perfect parent that protects them and guides them to Christ unlike (minor spoiler) Frankenstein, who abandoned his creature/child and let him rot in the cold and cruel world until it hardened the creature into a hateful killer. ![]() Even if he had stitched those dead body parts he used back together more precisely and better hid the stitch work or doctored the creature's skin to look prettier, or took more precautions to prevent it from being led down an evil road, he still had no business trying to create his own life and mistakes that would "cast a stumbling block" in the creature's way were inevitable. Frankenstein's monster came out a flawed creation with severe problems. Sure, you may not be putting a human together manually like Frankenstein, but a married couple is still ultimately ordering a flawed and unreliable biological machine (the uterus) to create life for them. Now, I don't see how procreative intercourse is any different from this. The point is, don't play God and try creating life. (and this begins the main conflict in the novel which I'll let you read more about if you so desire). You could say that Frankenstein, having created this creature, is at least in a very similar position as the father of a child by having created a life that he is responsible for, but by the imperfect nature of his creation, Frankenstein ultimately failed at playing God and created an imperfect creation unlike how God built Adam. I'll call Frankenstein, the scientist who made the monster, and the monster, by their respective names as they are referred to in the novel.įrankenstein created the monster unnaturally, essentially trying to "build" a man as God is said to have "built" Adam.īy doing this, Frankenstein is basically trying to make himself God, but of course he also creates an imperfect being who is deformed, ugly, and brutish (although the monster is very level-headed and articulate in the book, unlike the movie). I won't go into all the details of the story for anyone interested in giving it a read who hasn't already (I do recommend reading it), but I'll emphasize the part that is relevant to this question, which is something pretty much everyone knows about Frankenstein (or more precisely, Frankenstein's monster).īear with me, the philosophy behind this part of the novel is absolutely in line with Christian beliefs. I don't know if any of you have read the original novel, "Frankenstein," (1818) by Mary Shelley, but it's definitely a thoughtful and philosophical novel. I'm interested in joining the catholic faith, but there's a very big problem that makes no sense to me and that's the obligation of ordinary people who aren't in holy orders to marry and have children, which must be done by procreative sex. A true Christian must know the heart of God to truly follow him. ![]() I am not doing right by God if I obey him based on a misunderstanding. ![]() I understand that Catholicism operates on the idea that God is, in fact, completely sensible and reasonable, and that what we find unreasonable about him and what he says is ultimately just a misunderstanding. I emphasize that I am willing to listen to a rational argument against my case that proves I am wrong. No worries, I'll respect the rules.Īt the bottom of this post I'll mention a few of the arguments they gave over there and my responses to them. Originally posted this on Catholicism but I stirred the hive a bit and they removed it and asked me to post it here. Looks like a karma barrier kept me from posting here.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |