HTCG 02d

Chapter 2 continues.

Section C: The Impression of Things

Part 3: Comparison with Plato’s Symposium

Recall that the previous post left off mentioning the Hebrew outlook on human sexual union.

What Boman only hints at in this part would require you read at least a summary of the Symposium. The Greeks had an entirely paganized attitude toward human sexuality that would shock any western church folks. The Hebrews were not shocked, just repulsed at the Greek acceptance of sex between men as normal. Need we mention God condemned it as a sin justifying stoning for covenant folks and slaughter of Gentiles?

Still, let’s be honest about what the Symposium tries to say. It’s a drunken party attended by several famous speakers who each gave a speech in praise of Eros, the Greek god of love. It’s not solely base on sexual lust, because it doesn’t include rape or molesting little children. It’s all about ostensible adults voluntarily exchanging sexual favors with some kind of high regard for each other. The speech by Aristophanes consists of a theory that humans were long ago joined together as doubles united back-to-back. His whole point is that all of us suffer from at least a vague sense of isolation and separation from other humans because a couple of gods were angry and split the double humans apart.

Boman doesn’t tell you: Hebrews were aware of that sense of isolation, but regarded it quite differently, with no such mythology. It wasn’t a basic human need, just something we endured as part of the Fall, which God may or may not choose to mitigate for you. If we do not unite in spirit with God, no amount of human union will help.

Still, the Greeks considered it a serious human necessity, and it justified their sexual depravity, with the claim that there’s something higher than just lust involved. It’s mankind’s quest to restore a one-to-one unity to escape feeling so lonely. I think it’s patently silly that Boman wants to suggest that there is any connection between this story and the Hebrew outlook on anything when he can’t be bothered to share with us the contrasting attitude of the Hebrews.

At the same time, I might note in passing the western churchman’s sense of repulsion at human sexual depravity is quite overwrought. If a queer “hitting on” you feels like an insult and makes you angry, there is something quite wrong inside of you.

We’ll end this post here because Boman’s Part 4 justifies a whole post.

This entry was posted in teaching and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to HTCG 02d

  1. What about Bowman’s discussion of the creation of woman out of the ‘rib’? I mean, I am used to scholars downplaying or glossing over the homoerotic elements in Greek philosophy/culture, but we have need to balance out the overwhelmingly negative and pessimistic views on women coming from TRP and it’s Christian sectors which in my opinion both boarders on blaspheming the Lord in regards to his wisdom and power while downplaying the fact that the current state of affairs was and is the creation of men. But, I cannot say such things without being labeled as a Beta or pedistalizer, right?

    • ehurst says:

      I would say Boman missed the point on that discussion. Still, it raises the important issue that the Holy Spirit does have an awful lot to say about whom we should choose as a spouse, which is something I’ve yet to see covered properly in Red Pill discussions. When I tried, it was ignored, and sometimes even denied indirectly. Everyone wants to talk about the mechanics and common elements, but no one wants to discuss the power of God working our lives.

      • Yes, and when I tried to share my experience of the Lord’s action in my marriage, I was written off as deceived and or gullible (my wife really was not a virgin, I got lucky, etc.) The ‘power of God working in our lives’ is what I am all about. One man a thousand could land a Christian unicorn in my opinion and it still would not matter as long as one is genuinely in partnership with the Lord, which opens up a whole other can of worms that TRP never addresses because it essentially assumes that the divine will/action is indeed not a factor. Unbelief is unbelief no matter how it is justified, that is, if one is actually being led by the Lord, which is a whole other can of worms that is never cracked open because it is not enough of a factor to be taken into consideration.

Leave a Reply