|
| Welcome to Religious Forums |
| Welcome Guest to ReligiousForums.com . You are currently not registered. When you become registered you will be able to interact with our large base of already registered users discussing topics. Some annoying Ads will also disappear when you register. Registering doesn't cost a thing and only takes a few seconds. We provide areas to chat and debate all World Religions. Please go to our register page! |
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
03-19-2007, 08:59 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Paul: Sexuality and "Nature"
I've been reading and thinking about homosexuality and sexuality in general in Paul and other Greco-Roman sources.
I've concluded that when Paul states that something is "according to nature" or "against nature," he's not making an argument from nature, but a cosmological argument. Natural science and metaphysics were not seperated in the mind of Paul, nor were they seperate in all of the other views regarding sexuality in the sources that I've used. This is significant because people try to address sexuality as "natural" or "unnatural" based on natural sciences (eg., biology, physiology, psychology, etc), and apply it to Paul's ancient terminology. When Paul says "according to nature" we should read and interpret it as "according to the structure of the cosmos." That's a significant difference because he views God - along with the Greek philosophers that he follows - as the Creator and Sustainer of the cosmos, and the order that God created and is a part of is "Nature." "Nature" is not "what science can demonstrate" but is connected inextricably to the metaphysical activity of God.
__________________
From each according to his interest rate, to each according to his credit.  -Capitalist Manifesto-
|
|
#2
03-19-2007, 09:00 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
__________________
From each according to his interest rate, to each according to his credit. -Capitalist Manifesto-
|
|
#3
03-19-2007, 09:03 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Very interesting! Thanks AE; there are a couple of other "grey areas" that have occurred to me, which I wanted to check up.
You've given me ther impetus to do so....... 
__________________
My life is an open book; if you don't like the read, put me back on the shelf ....................
|
|
#4
03-19-2007, 09:10 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I am still thinking about what this means for us. It may mean that the modern scientific method cannot defeat Paul's argument. Paul is not saying that homosexuality is against biology (etc - what science can disprove), but against his cosmology (that is, what science cannot disprove). However, there is a definate intersection between the cosmology and biology, and where that intersects in the mind of Paul and others is difficult to ascertain. That is, if Paul were shown modern science - and homosexuality was shown to be 'natural' - would Paul have to change his cosmology? I don't think so because the ancients knew of biological homosexuality in the animal and human world, and some people like Paul rejected it as cosmologically viable.
__________________
From each according to his interest rate, to each according to his credit. -Capitalist Manifesto-
|
|
#6
03-19-2007, 09:31 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It could mean that gay Christians would be pretty far removed from the cosmology of Paul than they would like to be - if they are interested in continuity with "biblical" Christianity. It is significant to my mind that Christians cannot battle Paul with science in this regard - he knew of committed homosexuality and rejected it on cosmological terms - and this cosmology is reflected elsewhere in Christian writings (eg., the Bride of Christ). We cannot simply prove that homosexuality is biologically natural and say that Paul was wrong - we have to develop another theology - the theology is linked to nature. Paul is not basing his view of "nature" on scientific review but on his theology/cosmological outlook. Other people during Paul's time were arguing that homosexuality was natural/cosmologically viable - it was a debate - and Paul is clearly on the con (against) side.
__________________
From each according to his interest rate, to each according to his credit. -Capitalist Manifesto-
|
|
#7
03-19-2007, 01:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Can't believe how strange it is to be anything at all....
|
|
#8
03-19-2007, 01:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Cause I honestly do not see any. What is science other than mans attempt at undertanding the cosmos?
__________________
. Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. ~Douglas Adams
|
|
#9
03-19-2007, 02:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
ESV Romans 1:26-27 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. Paul is not talking about biology or physiological "nature." That is, it's not a simple reckoning that homosexual sex is unnatural because our bodies naturally compliment one another or that only heterosexual sex produces children. 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.
__________________
From each according to his interest rate, to each according to his credit. -Capitalist Manifesto-
|
|
#10
03-19-2007, 02:06 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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
__________________
From each according to his interest rate, to each according to his credit. -Capitalist Manifesto-
|
