The Genesis account is complex. It is clearly not literal, at least in a this-worldly sense, for that would create too many contradictions, not just in terms of our scientific knowledge, but also according to the internal logic of the biblical texts themselves. Notably, Origen took Genesis and Eden to refer to the pre-material Forms in another dimension; the “fall” was merely an ambiguous event that brought these forms (and history) into material existence. After all, one can wish for a world without death, but that would lead to (even greater) overpopulation. Similarly, remaining innocent would imply a stasis, a lack of experience, hence a colorless non-life. From this perspective the so-called “fall” would not have been universally bad, as has all too often been portrayed in Christianity. The Gnostic perspective is useful in this regard. Many traditions, along with empirical science, can enlighten and compensate one another, and lead to a fuller or truer picture than any single theory, hypothesis, notion, idea, doctrine, or dogma.
The Abrahamic hostility to, or ambivalence about, sexuality is internally contradictory if one holds that the universe is created “good” (sound), since we know that sexuality in the nonhuman world is complex, and that other species are hermaphroditic, and engage in same-sex (and other biblically proscribed) activities. Likewise, there is an inherent tension between this- and otherworldliness in the Abrahamic traditions. Jesus of Nazareth: human prophet, healer, announcer of the imminent kingdom on earth, inveigher against established wealth and elites, crucified political criminal. Jesus Christ: heavenly, eternal revealer, bearer of an esoteric message and hidden truth, an incarnate, transcendent being who is “not of this world,” the divine Son and firstborn, universal Logos. There is simply no “orthodox” way to reconcile these two divergent trends in the Gospels and Epistles.
The very notion of redemption implies that the existing world is sound, however flawed, and that in the age to come its essential character, its vibrancy, will not be abolished but conserved and transformed. Thus Paul’s disgust at homosexuality, his wariness of sex in general, and his apolitical resignation to authority contradict other key thrusts within the biblical tradition: the goodness and importance of this-worldly life. It is surprising that so many currents exist in the Bible (and Koran), but they do. Both lived experience and the Abrahamic mythos put the lie to modern fundamentalism and even to many, if not all, of the finer points of ancient orthodoxy. It is like the conflict between morality (aesthetics) and class (realism), two seemingly dependent considerations. Each of them is necessary to understand the dialectics of history. Yet everything, it is said, flows from a source (or Source).
Taking all these factors into account, revisions to faith may be necessary to separate the often-false inessentials—say, Leviticus’ negative views on homosexuality—from the more nuanced and truthful core, and to ensure that nothing contradicts accumulated empirical knowledge (science). A further case: since, per orthodoxy, “God” established human and nonhuman biology, there can be no objective opposition to supposed sexual “deviancy” or to intercourse itself. A life lived in truth and integrity is likened to a costly but deep love, hence sexual metaphors for Abrahamic faith. Active principle/husband “God” also used reserve DNA to form a body He took as His wife; hence immaterial “spirit” became incarnate “God-Man.” This fleshly embodiment of the preexistent “Image” spoke in nonliteral parables, just as much of the Bible is nonliteral.
In the realm to come, people receive super-bodies patterned after the Super-Body of the Logos, and enjoy the closest unity and intimacy with Him, the Source and Power of all things, whose very being shatters worlds. Though He is masculine, embodying the active principle, He desires that this be reflected in all mortals, regardless of sexuality. Consistent with the egalitarianism of early human history, women, too, receive super-bodies in His masculine image, while retaining individuality and sexuality. There is no reason why the cosmic “Christ,” united with His people, would not be willing to partake in experiences and sensations strongly akin to sexual intercourse, but in a transformed, otherworldly version. And there is no reason why same-sex “intercourse” would be prohibited. (The Quran and hadith make sexual pleasure paramount in the "afterlife.") In this proposed afterlife, "Christ" would express His free-flowing power through "intercourse" with his followers, who, in turn, would engage in the same among themselves.
At least that’s the “devil’s advocate.”
