Quote:
The concern with sex which is a prime consideration of Christianity leaves no doubt that reproduction is somehow a thorn in the side of that religion
Erm...I would have thought that if anything, it's
non-reproductive sex that gets, pardon the pun, everyone's panties in a twist in all the monotheisms in their strictest forms, not just Christianity. It's to do with their social origins: the need to keep up tribal numbers and hence, to strictly control the fertility and sexuality of 'their' women. Of all possible sexual acts, it's the things done for pleasure, especially by women, that don't or can't result in pregnancy that are most despised and forbidden by religious authorities. (OK, Christianity's original apocalyptic bent meant that a lot of people got the idea it was better not to have sex at all than bring children into a world that would soon be ending. But lots of 'end times' Christians these days have large families anyway. And the Catholic Church, early on, used to let priests marry - before they cannily realized that celibate clergy would leave their money to the Church rather than to their children.)
As far as worshipping your creator goes? Even in human terms, you get love and admiration by being worthy of them; if you
have to demand worship, you almost certainly don't deserve it. And anyway, that's the act of a human ego. And in any act of creativity, egos are really best kept out of the way. Anyone who's waving theirs around in a 'Look at me!' manner is, at the very least, annoying, and at worst, may be making up for the actual work being crappy and pointless. Only difference in your scientist's case would be that he'd be alienating the creations themselves as well as the audience.
_________________
"Grunge? Isn't that some gross shade of greenish orange?"