Homsexuality and Cosmology: Nature and Choice Are Irrelevant (ritual, moral)

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

Was that quote from me? If it was, do you remember from where?

Apologies! It was from a post by Darkness, 61 I think. For some reason I thought it was yours.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

So how could something that is engrained in our nature destroy it, unless destroying it were also a natural part of some recreation cycle?

In years past, I spent a lot of time musing on this question. It is obvious that we humans are our own worst enemy, and that we now have the power to destroy all known life in the universe. So why would nature produce a life form that is able to become so UNnatural as to destroy all life on Earth, and so perverse as to destroy even itself in the process? Is nature's ultimate achievement to be it's own undoing? And if this is so, what does this tell us about the idea of the natural universe being an expression of ideal values?

I have no answer to these questions. All that's changed is that the likelihood of our destroying all life on Earth (and perhaps in the universe) has diminished, slightly. So I think about it less.

But this does not negate that facts that cause us to ask such a question, and that sure puts a big stumbling block in front of AE's contention that nature doesn't matter. If nature doesn't matter, then homosexuality cannot be effecting the cosmos in any way that we should care. Especially since we are likely to damage the cosmos on a far grander scale that any homosexual activity can. And if nature does matter, and homosexuality is effecting the cosmos as claimed, then it's small potatoes as compared to the damage we are really capable of. Yet it's nature itself that seems to be causing both the homosexuality and the whole negative impact of mankind in general. It's as if nature wants to commit suicide through mankind, and if this is so, how can we claim it's wrong?

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by PureX

In years past, I spent a lot of time musing on this question. It is obvious that we humans are our own worst enemy, and that we now have the power to destroy all known life in the universe. So why would nature produce a life form that is able to become so UNnatural as to destroy all life on Earth, and so perverse as to destroy even itself in the process? Is nature's ultimate achievement to be it's own undoing? And if this is so, what does this tell us about the idea of the natural universe being an expression of ideal values?

I have no answer to these questions. All that's changed is that the likelihood of our destroying all life on Earth (and perhaps in the universe) has diminished, slightly. So I think about it less.

But this does not negate that facts that cause us to ask such a question, and that sure puts a big stumbling block in front of AE's contention that nature doesn't matter. If nature doesn't matter, then homosexuality cannot be effecting the cosmos in any way that we should care. Especially since we are likely to damage the cosmos on a far grander scale that any homosexual activity can. And if nature does matter, and homosexuality is effecting the cosmos as claimed, then it's small potatoes as compared to the damage we are really capable of. Yet it's nature itself that seems to be causing both the homosexuality and the whole negative impact of mankind in general. It's as if nature wants to commit suicide through mankind, and if this is so, how can we claim it's wrong?

Thanks for solidifying my musings!

Paul's cosmology is based on a divine being: God. Plato also assumed divinity in the universe. Taking into account that something in our nature causes us to destroy the cosmos, a conclusion could be that the divinities of both philosophers were imperfect. In other words, Paul's God creates a cosmos and a mortal being that, through actions natural to it, can damage the cosmos. This is probably not so much a problem in Plato's case, since the gods were generally seen as having imperfections anyway (albeit, godlike imperfections). In fact, I would argue that Greek philosophy would demand that divinity create something imperfect, since a human artisan necessarily creates something imperfect, so must the gods--just on a grander scale such as the cosmos.

But in Paul's case this is a real problem. The Christian God cannot be deemed imperfect. So creating a being that naturally and repeatedly defiles the cosmos with acts of wanton homosexual lust must be in some way necessary to His grand plan. In which case, homosexuals cannot be blamed for their actions, for it is in their nature and God's plan of defiling the cosmos.

Looking at this from the perspective of a non-divine universe however, the idea that through natural processes a being is created that destroys the same processes does seem a bit parricidal. It is almost like a computer creating a virus that destroys the computer. It is amazingly not unbelievable. It is why environmentalism exists. We know we are ultimately destroying the very thing that keeps us in existence, and we know that something ought to be done about it.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by PureX

In years past, I spent a lot of time musing on this question. It is obvious that we humans are our own worst enemy, and that we now have the power to destroy all known life in the universe. So why would nature produce a life form that is able to become so UNnatural as to destroy all life on Earth, and so perverse as to destroy even itself in the process? Is nature's ultimate achievement to be it's own undoing? And if this is so, what does this tell us about the idea of the natural universe being an expression of ideal values?

I have no answer to these questions. All that's changed is that the likelihood of our destroying all life on Earth (and perhaps in the universe) has diminished, slightly. So I think about it less.

But this does not negate that facts that cause us to ask such a question, and that sure puts a big stumbling block in front of AE's contention that nature doesn't matter. If nature doesn't matter, then homosexuality cannot be effecting the cosmos in any way that we should care. Especially since we are likely to damage the cosmos on a far grander scale that any homosexual activity can. And if nature does matter, and homosexuality is effecting the cosmos as claimed, then it's small potatoes as compared to the damage we are really capable of. Yet it's nature itself that seems to be causing both the homosexuality and the whole negative impact of mankind in general. It's as if nature wants to commit suicide through mankind, and if this is so, how can we claim it's wrong?

I think you're on to something in many of your points.

However, I feel that I need to clarify a few things:

1) The purpose of my OP is to explain and describe Paul's use of the word "nature." My point is that Paul is not using the word "nature" to mean "that which is biologically natural (and therefore scientifically verifiable from our perspective)" but "that which is in line with the cosmos (and therefore not verifiable from our perspective in any way)."

2) The main point, then, is that since Paul is not arguing from a scientific review of nature, we cannot combat Paul with a scientific review. That is, we cannot look to modern science's understanding as perfectly natural and then say that Paul's understanding of nature or cosmology is incorrect.

There really is no way - IMHO - to review Paul's cosmology by reason or science because it is based on neither. Plato and Timaeus thought that they were coming to their conclusions by means of rationale, but they both assumed that God existed - and (therefore) they allowed metaphysical evidence to have the same weight as what we consider to be "objectively verifiable fact."

We either accept the cosmology or reject it, basically as a confession. Or we can reconstruct it... but when we reconstruct a cosmology, how can we claim continuance with the original article? (Like claiming to be a Christian with a reconstructed 'Christian' cosmology. Fundamentalist claim to keep the original cosmology, but I have not encountered one who did not attempt some kind of reconstruction.)

[PureX]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I think you're on to something in many of your points.

However, I feel that I need to clarify a few things:

1) The purpose of my OP is to explain and describe Paul's use of the word "nature." My point is that Paul is not using the word "nature" to mean "that which is biologically natural (and therefore scientifically verifiable from our perspective)" but "that which is in line with the cosmos (and therefore not verifiable from our perspective in any way)."

2) The main point, then, is that since Paul is not arguing from a scientific review of nature, we cannot combat Paul with a scientific review. That is, we cannot look to modern science's understanding as perfectly natural and then say that Paul's understanding of nature or cosmology is incorrect.

There really is no way - IMHO - to review Paul's cosmology by reason or science because it is based on neither. Plato and Timaeus thought that they were coming to their conclusions by means of rationale, but they both assumed that God existed - and (therefore) they allowed metaphysical evidence to have the same weight as what we consider to be "objectively verifiable fact."

We either accept the cosmology or reject it, basically as a confession. Or we can reconstruct it... but when we reconstruct a cosmology, how can we claim continuance with the original article? (Like claiming to be a Christian with a reconstructed 'Christian' cosmology. Fundamentalist claim to keep the original cosmology, but I have not encountered one who did not attempt some kind of reconstruction.)

I really see no reason that we should adopt such an absurd limitation. Just because Paul does not have a grasp of the natural sciences does not in any logical way that I can imagine, mean that we are not "allowed" to use our understanding of the natural sciences in evaluating Paul's position. That's like saying that since the Earth is ignorant of mathematics, we should not use mathematics as a means of understanding or evaluating the Earth. Or, since "Bob" can't read or write, we can't use written or read information as we understand and evaluate what "Bob" thinks, says and does.

For one thing it is not really possible for us to 'unknow' what we know so as to 'more fairly' evaluate the ideas and propositions of those who are ignorant of what we are not. And for another thing, I just can't think of any logical reason why new information should not be brought to bear on old ideas.

In centuries past, people believed the world was flat, and that if they sailed too close to the edge, they would be washed over it into the abyss. We now know that this is not so. And as a result of our knowing this, we can clearly state that all those people living in centuries past were just plain wrong in their understanding and their proclamations about the way the world worked and what would happen if one dared to go and see for themselves.

The same is true of any past "cosmological" view. As new information comes to us, we discover that the old views are just plain wrong. And so we drop them and move on.

Paul's cosmological view of homosexuality was based on ideas and conditions that led him to make erroneous conclusion. He lived in a world in which homosexuality needed to be viewed as negatively effecting the cosmos because it did negatively effect the way people were living at that time. But the truth is that homosexuality did not negatively effect the cosmos. It only negatively effected the way people were living at that time. And now that we can look at it from the broader perspective of a different time and place and social construct in history, we can see that there was no "cosmological" effect. And since we no longer live as people did then, homosexuality no longer has the negative social effect that it had on society, then, either.

The "cosmology" you keep referring to was only the way the world looked through the eyes and minds of the people of that time and place and social construct. And it was only that "cosmology" that was effected negatively by homosexuality ... that one that existed only in the people of that time's, minds.

As I posted before, Paul's homophobia was no different than America's racism. Just as Paul's "cosmos" was negatively "rocked" by overt homosexuality, so was America's "cosmos" negatively "rocked" by interracial intercourse. But the term "cosmos", here, is being used to define a personal paradigm (complete with biases, logical and otherwise), and is NOT defining an actual or archetypical material condition.

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

But in Paul's case this is a real problem. The Christian God cannot be deemed imperfect. So creating a being that naturally and repeatedly defiles the cosmos with acts of wanton homosexual lust must be in some way necessary to His grand plan. In which case, homosexuals cannot be blamed for their actions, for it is in their nature and God's plan of defiling the cosmos.

This conclusion could have been reached by Paul without modern biological or any other scientific knowledge.

[angellous_evangellous]

I really see no reason that we should adopt such an absurd limitation. Just because Paul does not have a grasp of the natural sciences does not in any logical way that I can imagine, mean that we are not "allowed" to use our understanding of the natural sciences in evaluating Paul's position.

If we use modern science to evaluate Paul's argument, we are evaluating something that he did not say, using "reasoning" that he did not use. We really aren't in the position to say that he is in "error" any more than we can say that belief in any god is erroneous.