short conversation about marriage

[low_delta]

"well that's why god made a man *and* a woman..."

"I don't think that the state should be making laws about what it thinks god wants."

Comments

[cynnerth.livejournal.com]

"I don't think that the state should be making laws about what it thinks god wants."

Excellent answer!

[ravengirl.livejournal.com]

amen.
er, i mean, i second that~

[dwivian]

My answer has always been

"God made a man. That's it. When Man complained, he ASKED for a woman, and God made him what he asked for. Man asked for what he saw around him, which is what Earth made."

At this point people want to interject or correct, so I ask them to get out a Bible. They are rather surprised to read that God didn't make the animals -- he told the Earth to, and it did. So Adam wanted to be more of the earth, like animals he saw. Had he seen dolphins or mallards, we'd have had Adam and Steve. Women are Adam's fault, not God's obvious design.

That one always makes prim and proper Bible-thumping women get weird.

Ah, the joys of Christian Apologetics....

[redthread.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, any government making laws on what it thinks "God wants" -- which some do! -- is scary!!

?

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

The Bible I have gives the standard story of God deciding man should not be alone, taking out a rib and making it into a woman. Gen 2, 20-23

Genesis

[emschin.livejournal.com]

Well, the "J" source that is the foundation for Chapter 2 has Adam asking for a companion.

But, then, the "E" source that is the foundation for the story as told in Chapter 1 says "So God created humankind in his image....male and female created he them". And that's where the earth is told to bring forth animals and then the "E" text goes on to say "So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal.. . "

I don't know which one was written down first. Of course, I'm a believer in evolution as well as a believer in God so I wouldn't try to limit God by expecting either version had to be a blueprint.

Re: ?

[dwivian]

read very carefully....

Adam looked to the animals for his helper, first, and didn't find one.... this is important.

it is also important to go back one verse and see that "male and female he created them".... which is in the previous creation myth. For literalists that think this is direct line, it says that God made females at first, but Adam didn't want them, and after checking every other animal, and staying alone, Adam needed help. So, God made for Adam a woman from his own flesh so he wouldn't reject her.

Yeah, it's a stretch, but I never said it was easy making sense of old Hebrew....

Re: Genesis

[dwivian]

WOO! Someone who knows the problems of multiple sources!

Yeah, the blueprint idea is a critical one -- one has to assume that woman was on the charts, of course. it makes no sense for Man to be created with no procreative capacity -- in fact, the creation of woman is the admission, by God, that procreation is necessary because death is a reality, which means God knew of the fall before it happened, and by creating a solution to the issues of the fall, caused it, and...

....this is why lawyers make weird ministers.... :)

Re: ?

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

Nope. this New Revised Standard (gee that's a lot of adjectives) Version souinds like Em's "E" source. Whatever that is.

Re: ?

[dwivian]

"E" - Elohist, named because the writing style of that author is filled with a common use of Elohim as the name for God. It differs from the "J" source, called the Yawist (thus J), the "P" source, or Priestly, who wrote much of the law in Leviticus, and the "D" source, or the Deuterocanonial, who wrote the second section of Torah (the second canon).

They are intermixed in all sections, not by translation. If you see Lord God, that indicates a different source that God, or LORD. You get used to it as you start doing too much scholarship for your sanity.

How I love it....

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

It always boggles me when people fixate on one line of the bible and decide THAT ONE IS IMPORTANT.

What about all the other lines that say things we'd rather ignore?

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

That's right.

re: proof texts

[emschin.livejournal.com]

I also agree. In fact, that was the real point of my answer. People who quote a Bible verse and use that as proof of something are on shaky ground, in my opinion. It says somewhere in the Bible that we are not to wear clothes made of more than one fabric. Now is someone seriously going to make a moral issue of cotton/polyester?

Actually, I couldn't believe the person I was answering was serious so I just joined in what I thought was a little game.