quote:Read my last to another Paol, and I think you will see that it is all a communal ownership of all men and women that is implied, and to Christians, that full sharing is called Heaven.
That seems to be a rather questionable interpretation when the text explicitly states that “He brought the female to be with the male in common and in the same way united all the animals”, “…all can share her…”, “…he has implanted in males a strong and ardent desire which neither law nor custom nor any other restraint is able to destroy…” and “…by the words Your neighbors wife he says something even more ludicrous, since he forces what should be common property to be treated as private posession”.
What is B.S. about a man wanting to posses a wife to call his own?
In the Christian heaven, there are no marriages. That is what that text is saying about an imaginary realm populated by fully equal souls.
Androgynous souls, if we are to be created in Yahweh's image. The Jewish, not Christian Yahweh.
It also says that human males have a possession sense that helps makes them do their duty of dying for women and children, should the need arise.
Non-androgynous man, which is what we are, given that Christianity does not recognize the androgynous Yahweh, has decided to not do as Yahweh programmed and share our women, because neither side wanted it.
In the old days, it also meant that if the male of the family died, his neighbors were to absorb what was left into another home, if required.
What problems do you see with those rules to live life by?
You gnostic christians are not christians, do not believe in the tenets of any of the usual christian creeds, but claim philosophical kinship to the biblical christian myths for their morality tales. I'm unclear if you are defining god as each of us humans individually (mega-polytheism) or as Mother Nature, physics, the reality we can see, the universe as god.
The fact that no Gnostic Christian sect ever did what you say I have to defend, ---because you cannot understand the defence I gave of the text, --- shows that you do not see it saying that men's instincts and desires demanded specific wives and did not give credence to sexual universality on Earth. Only in heaven, just as the other Christianity had.
The ancient religions tried to venerate married sex to control populations where recourses were limited. That is why Temple Prostitutes were so important to the church and King's economy.
Temple Prostitutes were thought of as non-specific, in sexual terms.
You want me to defend for that? I can.
I cannot defend what was never tried, because real men and women would not participate.