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

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by MysticSang'ha

I truly appreciate all the work you're putting into your latest threads, Nate.

Thanks.

For Christians, I think that it means that if we are going to affirm homosexuality, which many Christians want to do, we have to undergo a process of deconstructing the biblical/Greco-Roman cosmology and reconstructing a new one. Complete deconstruction is necessary, even for a seemingly minor change, because any change is a complete one in cosmology.

This may alienate Christians more from the biblical cosmology than they are comfortable with... for example, what need is there of God, Christ, and Christian doctrine if it is completely removed from its cosmology.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

Ah, so it is just the act of inserting the penis into the vagina that establishes unity then?

What of oral or anal sex between heterosexual couples? If that is fine, then how does that differ from oral or anal sex between homosexual couples? Does that fall into the other catagories of gender?

Exactly. Oral and anal sex are cosmologically useless, and more often are endangering cosmic stability.

And shouldn't that mean we should be having strict heterosexual sex much more often, regardless of wedlock?

Orgies for all!

No. It is quite clear that heterosexual unity is best achieved in monogamous vaginal sex, and therefore honored by humans with marriage.

The cosmos does not go from archon to archon but is completed by one act. In Gnosticism, the coming together of Adam and Eve, in Christianity, it is the marriage of Christ and the Church... Christ does not go from church to church, unifying himself to everyone, but the cosmos is completed by his single marriage to one Church. In Timaeus, the one man is complete by one woman.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

There is also the question of the mechanics of how homosexual sex harms the cosmos. Is there an energy breach of some kind? If so, then it seems more complicated for it to simply be the act of inserting the penis into the vagina.

Instead, it seems more likely that the energy is instead manifested from emotion and psychological interaction rather than gonadal.

Yes, I think that is a good way of putting it.

[PureX]

My question would be why should modern men and women follow and archaic cosmological concept, when there is now objective evidence to the contrary?

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by PureX

My question would be why should modern men and women follow and archaic cosmological concept, when there is now objective evidence to the contrary?

There was objective evidence to the contrary when the cosmology was constructed. It's simply wrong to think that the ancients did not know of evidence for homosexuality as being perfectly normal. I have quotes regarding this on my thread Some notes on Paul and homosexuality..

EDIT: I've been considering this, too. There are several aspects of the cosmology that are not politically correct or scientifically viable. But then again, the existence of God in the first place is excluded with naturalistic presuppositions that guide science.

But the Christian has to consider this: the Bible promotes a cosmology that is the context for the existence of God and Christ's saving work. Without the cosmology, both the existence of God and Christ's work - and every other Christian teaching - have to be deconstructed and redefined.

Construction and definition of Christianity was the work of the apostles, not us. When we reshape and redefine our tradition according to our sensibilities, we don't have Christianity but something else entirely.

This puts us in the unhappy position of chosing which culture has supremacy. Do we want our culture - which nicely compliments the sexual ethics of the Greco-Roman culture that the New Testament is clearly against - to be supreme, or do we emphasize a foreign cosmology on our culture.

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Interesting point in perspective of a cosmological basis for sexual relations.

In The Good Book by Peter Gomes (Baptist minister, African American, gay, Harvard) Gomes proposes that the 'unnatural relations' referred to in Paul's epistles can not apply to homosexual relationships as we understand them to be today. If I remember correctly, the admonishment against unnatural relations refers only to heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts. I think this is kind of what GC is saying, if a person's nature is to be homosexual then it would be 'unnatural' to have a heterosexual relationship. Thus, homosexuality is not addressed at all in the NT.

That's very interesting, and if we are to take the cosmological paradigm, then this seems more likely.

[michel]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I have created three threads that have been largely ignored or misunderstood, so I will make an attempt here to clear things up a bit - at least to garner general understanding of the "biblical" approach to homosexuality.

There are two arguments for the "morality" or "ethical correctness" of homosexual behavior that do not affect the biblical view at all. That is, folks say that homosexuality is OK for two reasons:

1) It is natural. It is being proven that homosexuality is and always has been perfectly natural, being found in humanity and the animal world. Folks point out that the Bible says that homosexuality is "against nature," but we know with modern science that it is quite natural indeed.

2) Some people point out that being "natural" doesn't matter. We do things all the time that are "artificial." The reason why homosexuality is OK is because it is two (or more) consenting adults engaging in an activity that causes no harm. The argument that it does no harm can be supported with psychology and biology - the human body is just as suited to homosexual sex as it is for heterosexual sex.

Neither one of these arguments affect the biblical or Greek philosophical view at all, because it is not based on modern nature (#1) or a standard of harm (#2) but on a cosmological view of the unity of male and female.

That is, the pairing of male and female keeps the universe going properly. It brings the new seasons and keeps everything working properly. For Christianity and Gnosticism, it is a sign of salvation and the purpose of God... for Paul, it is the symbol of faithfulness and unity of Christ and the Church.

[from this point of view....] On a very grand scale, human beings are seperated into male and female, and every male and female needs one another. We actually have a metaphysical need to have sex. Homsexual sex does not fulfill this need, whether or not it is biologically normal or an ethical plausibility.

notes:

Some notes on Paul and homosexuality.
I've changed my mind about Gnosticism
Paul: Sexuality and "Nature"

So,we are back to the argument that homosexuals have no place here, because they won't reproduce ?

I beg to disagree; many homosexuals who have "Come out" have done so after having made efforts to live a heterosexual lifestyle - many have children.

Many Gay women choose to have children (because they wish to do so, and want to provide a loving environment for a child of one of them - or both, by IVF.

On a very grand scale, human beings are seperated into male and female,

A silly nitpicky point (I admit), but a valid one; sexuality is not separated into "male" and "Female" polarisations - there are greys and variations of degrees from pole to pole....