Keith said:
Unfortunately, the Pat Robertson crowd thinks "The Catholics" are trying to take over the government for Teh Gays and Teh Abortionists.
Yeah, this is the problem. It really doesn't matter what some yahoo Cardinal says, since the fundamentalist Protestants pushing Creationism and ID don't even consider Catholics to be Christians. But it's a good reminder to half the world's Christians that they aren't obliged to believe this creation nonsense.
According to one of the Pat Robertson quotes on his wikipedia, even mainline protestant churches aren't Christian:
On January 14, 1991, on "The 700 Club", Pat Robertson attacked a number of Protestant denominations when he declared: "You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist."
28
Idjit
HOPEFUL
I'm lost
NOV 06, 2005 10:17 PM
I bet Pat Robertson's license plate reads: 2XTIAN4U.
BrainFromArous said:
Whenever someone drags out the Genesis thing, ask them WHICH creation account they mean. There are two in Genesis. And they contradict each other.
It would also be nice if more people on BOTH sides understood that the validity of evolution/natural selection as a mechanism for species development has nothing to do with the existence (or not) of God. Evolutionary science doesn't address that question.
Although I actually agree with the statement that evolution does not address the origins of the Universe (more of a Steven Hawking question Id say) Im curious...just because it has been a while since reading any part of Genesis. Can you reference me the two accounts, so I can read them?
Genesis contains two quite different creation stories in its first two chapters. Story One has God creating the world and heavens out of "the darkness" (no, not the British rock band) and a "void" that existed before; the whole thing is created ex nihilo. The first creation is Light and God saves the worst for last - on the final, sixth day he creates humans. "Man and woman He created together," as the words go. Keep this in mind.
Story Two is less cosmic, more particular and strongly shows the influence of other contemporary and previous neighboring cultures and mythologies. In this telling, the world is already here but empty - God is the only living, conscious entity. God sets about improving it, first by making a kind of statue in the divine likeness and then breathing life into it. This act of theurgy brings to statue to conscious life. This is Adam, the first man. God then makes flora and fauna so both s5 and I will have something to eat when we arrive. God then famously takes one of Adam's ribs and uses it to make Adam a friend. With benefits. This is Eve.
The key difference is that Story One features the simultaneous creation of men and women; made as equals, one might say. Story Two has the man coming first (no surprise there, eh?), then plants and critters with the woman arriving last as an accessory, a adjunct, to the man.
It hardly takes a radical feminist to see the gender politics implicit in Story Two...
BrainFromArous said:
Whenever someone drags out the Genesis thing, ask them WHICH creation account they mean. There are two in Genesis. And they contradict each other.
It would also be nice if more people on BOTH sides understood that the validity of evolution/natural selection as a mechanism for species development has nothing to do with the existence (or not) of God. Evolutionary science doesn't address that question.
Although I actually agree with the statement that evolution does not address the origins of the Universe (more of a Steven Hawking question Id say) Im curious...just because it has been a while since reading any part of Genesis. Can you reference me the two accounts, so I can read them?
Genesis contains two quite different creation stories in its first two chapters. Story One has God creating the world and heavens out of "the darkness" (no, not the British rock band) and a "void" that existed before; the whole thing is created ex nihilo. The first creation is Light and God saves the worst for last - on the final, sixth day he creates humans. "Man and woman He created together," as the words go. Keep this in mind.
Story Two is less cosmic, more particular and strongly shows the influence of other contemporary and previous neighboring cultures and mythologies. In this telling, the world is already here but empty - God is the only living, conscious entity. God sets about improving it, first by making a kind of statue in the divine likeness and then breathing life into it. This act of theurgy brings to statue to conscious life. This is Adam, the first man. God then makes flora and fauna so both s5 and I will have something to eat when we arrive. God then famously takes one of Adam's ribs and uses it to make Adam a friend. With benefits. This is Eve.
The key difference is that Story One features the simultaneous creation of men and women; made as equals, one might say. Story Two has the man coming first (no surprise there, eh?), then plants and critters with the woman arriving last as an accessory, a adjunct, to the man.
It hardly takes a radical feminist to see the gender politics implicit in Story Two...
[Edited on Nov 06, 2005 by BrainFromArous]
Sorry for the long delay...I wanted to take some time to reread Genesis for the references you mention. I found two...
Gen 1:27, So God created man in his own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
And then again in Gen2:2-2:25 where the author detailed the creation of the Garden of Eden, man and woman (where woman is drawn from Adam's rib).
If these are the two passages to which you were referring, I can see your point as to the apparent contradiction. However, it seems to me that as the first book of Genesis is describing all seven days of the creation of the entire universe, the creation of man gets just a brief general statement, He created Man and Woman.
Then, in the second book (which is dedicated to just the creation of the Garden of Eden) the author details the specifics of the creation of Man and Woman.
I personally dont abide to the inferiority of woman in the Bible, as their are a lot of references which place the woman in a higher position to man and, in a couple of references, the woman saves mans butt by directly disobeying him.
I always take contradictions in the Bible with a grain of salt, as they dont have any real value in theological debates (with the limited exceptions to be mentioned below.) One has to remember that the entire Bible (assuming its origins to be authentic) is only a series of recalled accounts, written from memory after the fact, by multiple individuals seeing the same or similar events.
It is inevitable that contradictions will occur, as personal experience and memory will influence the writings. The exception to this are areas where the text has been written by a single individual within a limited time frame (such as the Pentateuch, presumably all written by Moses directly.)
In those instances, assuming again they ARE actually all from the same author, there should be a consistency in the writings...unless a significant amount of time has passed between the writings of one book to another. In the case of the latter, changes in perception of events, memory failures or growth of opinion has to be taken into consideration.
Enjoying the intellectual stimulation though :-) Thanks for the references and the thoughts :-)
BrainFromArous said:
Whenever someone drags out the Genesis thing, ask them WHICH creation account they mean. There are two in Genesis. And they contradict each other.
It would also be nice if more people on BOTH sides understood that the validity of evolution/natural selection as a mechanism for species development has nothing to do with the existence (or not) of God. Evolutionary science doesn't address that question.
Although I actually agree with the statement that evolution does not address the origins of the Universe (more of a Steven Hawking question Id say) Im curious...just because it has been a while since reading any part of Genesis. Can you reference me the two accounts, so I can read them?
Genesis contains two quite different creation stories in its first two chapters. Story One has God creating the world and heavens out of "the darkness" (no, not the British rock band) and a "void" that existed before; the whole thing is created ex nihilo. The first creation is Light and God saves the worst for last - on the final, sixth day he creates humans. "Man and woman He created together," as the words go. Keep this in mind.
Story Two is less cosmic, more particular and strongly shows the influence of other contemporary and previous neighboring cultures and mythologies. In this telling, the world is already here but empty - God is the only living, conscious entity. God sets about improving it, first by making a kind of statue in the divine likeness and then breathing life into it. This act of theurgy brings to statue to conscious life. This is Adam, the first man. God then makes flora and fauna so both s5 and I will have something to eat when we arrive. God then famously takes one of Adam's ribs and uses it to make Adam a friend. With benefits. This is Eve.
The key difference is that Story One features the simultaneous creation of men and women; made as equals, one might say. Story Two has the man coming first (no surprise there, eh?), then plants and critters with the woman arriving last as an accessory, a adjunct, to the man.
It hardly takes a radical feminist to see the gender politics implicit in Story Two...
[Edited on Nov 06, 2005 by BrainFromArous]
Sorry for the long delay...I wanted to take some time to reread Genesis for the references you mention. I found two...
Gen 1:27, So God created man in his own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
And then again in Gen2:2-2:25 where the author detailed the creation of the Garden of Eden, man and woman (where woman is drawn from Adam's rib).
If these are the two passages to which you were referring, I can see your point as to the apparent contradiction. However, it seems to me that as the first book of Genesis is describing all seven days of the creation of the entire universe, the creation of man gets just a brief general statement, He created Man and Woman.
Then, in the second book (which is dedicated to just the creation of the Garden of Eden) the author details the specifics of the creation of Man and Woman.
I personally dont abide to the inferiority of woman in the Bible, as their are a lot of references which place the woman in a higher position to man and, in a couple of references, the woman saves mans butt by directly disobeying him.
I always take contradictions in the Bible with a grain of salt, as they dont have any real value in theological debates (with the limited exceptions to be mentioned below.) One has to remember that the entire Bible (assuming its origins to be authentic) is only a series of recalled accounts, written from memory after the fact, by multiple individuals seeing the same or similar events.
It is inevitable that contradictions will occur, as personal experience and memory will influence the writings. The exception to this are areas where the text has been written by a single individual within a limited time frame (such as the Pentateuch, presumably all written by Moses directly.)
In those instances, assuming again they ARE actually all from the same author, there should be a consistency in the writings...unless a significant amount of time has passed between the writings of one book to another. In the case of the latter, changes in perception of events, memory failures or growth of opinion has to be taken into consideration.
Enjoying the intellectual stimulation though :-) Thanks for the references and the thoughts :-)
I've always liked this quote (I don't know who said it) that went something like, "God made Eve from Adam's rib so that women would neither rule over men nor be their slaves, but so that the two should work side by side in everything they do."
Miel said:
I've always liked this quote (I don't know who said it) that went something like, "God made Eve from Adam's rib so that women would neither rule over men nor be their slaves, but so that the two should work side by side in everything they do."
One day in the Garden of Eden, Eve calls out to God...
"Lord, I have a problem!"
"What's the problem, Eve?"
"Lord, I know you've created me and have provided this beautiful garden and all of these wonderful animals, and that hilarious comedic snake, but I'm just not happy."
"Why is that, Eve?" came the reply from above.
"Lord, I am lonely. And I'm sick to death of apples."
"Well, Eve, in that case, I have a solution. I shall create a man for you."
"What's a 'man,' Lord?"
"This man will be a flawed creature, with many bad traits. He'll lie, cheat, and be vainglorious; all in all, he'll give you a hard time. But, he'll be bigger, faster, and will like to hunt and kill things. He will look silly aroused, but since you've been complaining, I'll create him in such in a way that he will satisfy your ah, physical needs. He'll be witless and will revel in childish things like fighting and kicking a ball about. He won't be too smart, so he'll also need your advise to think properly.
"Sounds great," says Eve, with an suspiciously raised eyebrow. "What's the catch, Lord?"
"As I said, he'll be proud, arrogant, and self-admiring ... So you'll have to let him believe that I made him first. So, just remember . . . it's our secret . . . Woman to
woman."
What the fuck is it with cloning? Are these people still leaving twins on a hillside to die? What the funky george clinton does a persons genetics have to do with their soul?
Oh, and Go Vatican. Way to rock boat. And Pat Robinson sucks, even though he is only connected to this story in that he is a fuckhead/fundamentalist.
Idjit
HOPEFUL
I'm lost
NOV 06, 2005 09:31 PM