Paul: Sexuality and "Nature" (reject, Creator, homosexuality, Biblical)

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Paul says this because heterosexual sex is part of his cosmological outlook - his physical reality (what we consider to be the natural world) is weaved into his metaphysical reality (what we consider to be the supernatural world) - it's a much bigger picture.

Sorry to expose my ignorance once again, but I can't really make literal sense of this. My impression is that it's a complicated way of saying:

"Homosexuality is wrong 'cause, to me, it seems wrong."

Before I bug you with questions, I'll go see what reading will do for my confusion.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

Sorry to expose my ignorance once again, but I can't really make literal sense of this. My impression is that it's a complicated way of saying:

"Homosexuality is wrong 'cause, to me, it seems wrong."

Before I bug you with questions, I'll go see what reading will do for my confusion.

That's basically it, but why "to me it seems wrong" is because for Paul, the entire universe being balanced is symbolized by heterosexual unity.

A similar view was expressed by the Gnostics. See my quotes in I've changed my mind about Gnosticism

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

The difference is that Paul's cosmology is informed by metaphysics just as much as by physics.

Metaphysics as Paul knew it is pretty much dead today... the last remnants of it are in modern cosmology and theoretical (quantum) physics.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology

To be honest with you, the only real difference I can see between Pauls and ours is the amount of knowledge available.

For instance, we now know that the man only supplies the sperm which has to fertilize the egg. Unlike in Pauls time when they believed that the man deposited the whole child into the woman and the woman was merely an incubator for the child.

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

That's basically it, but why "to me it seems wrong" is because for Paul, the entire universe being balanced is symbolized by heterosexual unity.

A similar view was expressed by the Gnostics. See my quotes in I've changed my mind about Gnosticism

This does not really compute.
At least not whaen you stop and really think about it.

All throughout nature there is male and female, Paul's heterosexual balance, yet when it comes to God we have male/male/unknown.
This is off balance, at least to pauls heterosexual metaphysical iunity, in two ways.
First there are three not two.
Second there are two males.

So I fail to see how heterosexual unity could have had much of anything to do with Pauls idea of balance.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Mestemia

This does not really compute.
At least not whaen you stop and really think about it.

All throughout nature there is male and female, Paul's heterosexual balance, yet when it comes to God we have male/male/unknown.
This is off balance, at least to pauls heterosexual metaphysical iunity, in two ways.
First there are three not two.
Second there are two males.

So I fail to see how heterosexual unity could have had much of anything to do with Pauls idea of balance.

Paul did not apply this idea to the Godhead, only to human beings.

However, Paul did apply this cosmological unity to Christ (male groom) and the church (the female bride) in Ephesians chapter 5:

Ephesians 5:24-33 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

I'll further explain why Paul did not apply this concept of heterosexual unity to the Godhead when I am sober.

[angellous_evangellous]

In the meantime, meditate on my thread: I've changed my mind about Gnosticism.

In it, I provide some examples from Gnostic writings that apply the same ideal.

[angellous_evangellous]

OK, if Paul is influenced by a Platonic cosmology - or one that is similar - God is already perfectly unified, not being seperated into male and female.

The unity of the Godhead or Supreme being is often expressed in male terms, even if the perfectly unified God is actually androgynous in the cosmology.

This is evident in the texts cited on my other thread, as well as in Plato's Timaeus.

[michel]

If (as I understand it is) Homosexuality is a of a genetic "base", then what has caused the change in the genes ? - or has homosexuality always been as "common" as it is now, but was (prior to the "comming out era") kept under wraps?

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by michel

If (as I understand it is) Homosexuality is a of a genetic "base", then what has caused the change in the genes ? - or has homosexuality always been as "common" as it is now, but was (prior to the "comming out era") kept under wraps?

I'm under the impression that homosexuality has always been around, and at about the same level - perhaps 10%-20% of the human population.

Homoerotic behavior - the participation in same-sex sexual expressions was widely celebrated in Greco-Roman culture, although the persons involved may not have been completely homosexually oriented. If you were a male elite, you would basically be raised in the social context that sexual acts with both males and females, both with children and adults - was perfectly acceptable, and it is better to just do it all. The ancients did notice that some people sexually prefer one sex or another.

[angellous_evangellous]

Here are references that I have gathered regarding Greco-Roman approaches to sexuality.

Some notes on Paul and homosexuality.