Bible study

[Guest Paul]

I feel you may have avoided an earlier question.  The original post for this line of discussion was a request for bible study.  I was drwn in but turned off because it turned out to be an extremely distasteful attempt to mock the bible.  It was particularly offensive because it suggested many times that Adam was involved in sex with animals and that God must have approved of it.  At first glance, it look to me like something Strife might have posted.  He is often crude in his arguments against God, Christianity and the bible.  Because this is the case, Strife would have no reason to post as a guest.  Another guest said it was Mathew.  I noticed it was asked if this were the case and you didn't answer.  This seems to imply that he might have unless you never saw the original question.  It is a serious issue to me because of the level of insensitivity to  the faith of millions of Christians, Jews and Moslems.  If he didn't write it, he didn't write it and you should say so, but if he wrote it, I think he should apologize.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The post raises legitimate questions and makes excellent points through humor. The humor makes those points in a unique way. All it challenges is what you believe. Criticizing a belief is entirely in bounds.

I'm interested in the merits of the case, not who in wrote it. I haven't asked Matthew whether it was his, but I'm quite sure it was not. He hardly ever posts here or even looks at this site. Anyway, it's not his style.

Take a deep breath, a careful read, and look at what is being said, and asked. Then respond if you can on the merits. Sarcasm of the opening post aside, that's the only way to have a useful discussion on the subject.

[Strife767]

I feel you may have avoided an earlier question.  The original post for this line of discussion was a request for bible study.  I was drwn in but turned off because it turned out to be an extremely distasteful attempt to mock the bible.  It was particularly offensive because it suggested many times that Adam was involved in sex with animals and that God must have approved of it.

You cannot deny that according to the Bible, God at LEAST gave Adam a clear opportunity. Why would he do that if he wouldn't be okay with it? Like I said, your only two options for explaining this is:

a. God is malicious in giving Adam a clear opportunity to do something he would disapprove of, especially with Adam not (yet, since he hadn't yet eaten from the tree of knowledge at this point) knowing the difference between right and wrong.

b. God doesn't mind bestiality.

It's hilarious to see the kind of crazy dichotomies the Bible's myths put its literalist believers in. Again, don't blame me, I didn't write Genesis.

At first glance, it look to me like something Strife might have posted.

You must be new here. Every single post of mine here is posted under my registered name.

He is often crude in his arguments against God, Christianity and the bible.

I am no cruder than that which I criticize. The above is a perfect example. You guys believe the crazy stories, and damned if I'm going to be told there's something wrong with me for seeing the lunacy in this.

Because this is the case, Strife would have no reason to post as a guest.  Another guest said it was Mathew.  I noticed it was asked if this were the case and you didn't answer.  This seems to imply that he might have unless you never saw the original question.

How about you stop making assumptions and focusing on who wrote it, and try to actually address the post's points? It seems obvious you're focusing so much on the enigmatic author because you have no answer for the actual content.

It is a serious issue to me because of the level of insensitivity to  the faith of millions of Christians, Jews and Moslems.

Religious doctrine has earned no free pass from criticism. Your crazy stories deserve as much criticism as alien abduction stories, or Elvis sightings, since they are based as much in fact.

If he didn't write it, he didn't write it and you should say so, but if he wrote it, I think he should apologize.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cry me a river. Criticizing your holy book's silly stories is nothing compared to you lot constantly telling us that we're going to be punished for eternity for not buying into them, and what's more, that we're going to deserve it! If Christians like you knew how to keep your traps shut and not keep trying to foist this lunacy on the rest of us, there would be no 'backlash' from people like me. Your persecution complex only earns more contempt. Reminds me of this:

http://opendoors.no-ip.org/usr/kookus/oppressed.gif

[Guest Guest]

Then why did you bother posting in this topic at all? Stop trying to derail the thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And what exactly is this thread about to you Strife? I saw a sarcastic little twit trying to "save" the christians from who knows what by pointing out discepencies in the bible via a very snotty way. As Paul stated somewhere in this thread " If your trying to change peoples minds, that is not the way to do it".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. You have no idea who wrote it.

2. It does employ sarcasm, quite effectively in my opinion.

3. It is not personal to anyone. It deals completely with the content of the text.

4. It attempts to make a point. A few points. It does it very well.

5. People may not like this approach initially, but it may shock a few of them enough to get their attention, and maybe they'll think about it after a while. People have a natural inclination to resist change of long-held beliefs, so the fact that people don't like the approach suggests that it reached them on some level.

[Guest Guest]

I feel you may have avoided an earlier question.  The original post for this line of discussion was a request for bible study.  I was drwn in but turned off because it turned out to be an extremely distasteful attempt to mock the bible.  It was particularly offensive because it suggested many times that Adam was involved in sex with animals and that God must have approved of it.  At first glance, it look to me like something Strife might have posted.  He is often crude in his arguments against God, Christianity and the bible.  Because this is the case, Strife would have no reason to post as a guest.  Another guest said it was Mathew.  I noticed it was asked if this were the case and you didn't answer.  This seems to imply that he might have unless you never saw the original question.  It is a serious issue to me because of the level of insensitivity to  the faith of millions of Christians, Jews and Moslems.  If he didn't write it, he didn't write it and you should say so, but if he wrote it, I think he should apologize.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Distasteful why? Because it was effective? Because it holds a mirror to the text and says "Here, look what this is saying!" Everything in the original post is invited by the text. That's the point. Instead of killing the messenger, who hasn't revealed his or her identity (who can blame the person), think about it.

[Guest Guest]

Matthew, is that you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Guest]

1.  This isn't the first time he posted under a "guest" name.

2.  I don't believe everything written in the bible (although there are some good lifes lessons to be learned from it), I think he's a sarcastic little twit who's trying to provoke anyone who will fall for his stupid game (much like he did to P).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The July issue of Harper's magazine includes an article on page 27 on this story. It starts with the following quotation from David Paszkiewicz in one of the September classes that was recorded.

David Paszkiewicz: "I'm going to keep this short --- every day we'll devote five minutes or so to you guys trying to make an atheist out of me."

Paszkiewicz wasn't being provoked into these discussions. He was planning on them. He said so himself. He said he was going to spend five minutes out of every class period discussing his religious beliefs.

You fundies manage to ignore reality and make things mean what you want them to mean, but how do you explain that?

[Guest Guest]

They were selected because they were highly qualified judges who also happen to offer originalist interpretations of the Constitution.

Have you got something against that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was the other way around. They were selected because they would promote the Bush administration's political agendas on the Court. Their qualifications were entirely secondary, as is obvious from parade of radical-right appointments from this administration.

I have plenty against it. The judiciary is supposed to be independent, and for most of our history it was. Previously there were occasional appointments that were politically motivated, but in the main that independence was preserved. Under the misrule of the radical right dating all the way back to Reagan, judicial independence has been eroded and now it is almost completely discarded.

We are too divided a country. We will not continue to lead the world unless we heal these divisions. That means that the radical right must respect the rule of law and Democrats who are duly elected to office, including the presidency.

[Guest Guest]

Paul, it may come as a surprise to you, but you're cutting and pasting a translation of a document written in Hebrew.  I just explained to you that the Hebrew permits the past tense (it might occur to you that the rendering of the NIV translation committee supports that idea).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The document you're referring to is the one you insist we must all believe in on penanlty of eternal torment in the fiery hell of a loving-just-reallypissedoff god. The text is taken from the KJV, which is the most popular and widely regarded version of the Bible, at least in the USA. If a better translation is available, I suggest that you alert the editors of the KJV lest they spend their eternity in heaven regretting (deeply, no doubt) the eternal fate of all those for whom their mistranslations brought on the penalty of hell. One presumes the editors used the best available translation. Between their authority on the subject and Bryan's, I'll take theirs.

Explaining something doesn't just mean that you declare it as a fact, especially when it isn't. An explanation is a logical progression of statements, and an explanation of this kind must be based on fact in order to be of any value. That is not what we are seeing from you.

[Guest Guest]

As you said before, "If your trying to change peoples minds, that is not the way to do it"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The first thing you have to do to change minds is to get their attention. Sometimes when they're as stubborn as mules, the best way to do that is hit them very hard right between the eyes with something they don't like.

Fight all you like. The seed is planted.

[Guest Guest]

I feel you may have avoided an earlier question.  The original post for this line of discussion was a request for bible study.  I was drwn in but turned off because it turned out to be an extremely distasteful attempt to mock the bible.  It was particularly offensive because it suggested many times that Adam was involved in sex with animals and that God must have approved of it.  At first glance, it look to me like something Strife might have posted.  He is often crude in his arguments against God, Christianity and the bible.  Because this is the case, Strife would have no reason to post as a guest.  Another guest said it was Mathew.  I noticed it was asked if this were the case and you didn't answer.  This seems to imply that he might have unless you never saw the original question.  It is a serious issue to me because of the level of insensitivity to  the faith of millions of Christians, Jews and Moslems.  If he didn't write it, he didn't write it and you should say so, but if he wrote it, I think he should apologize.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree that this was insensitive. It goes to the content of the text, which is fair game for comment, especially when so many people try to promote those texts as the absolute truth, which everyone else must follow. If they could, many of the fundies would write this into our laws. So it seems to me that your sense of outrage is misplaced. It would be better directed against those who continually promote these things, but then insist that no one is allowed to criticize their beliefs or the writings on which they are based. In fact, that insistence is deeply offensive.

[Guest Red-Letter Edition]

Distasteful why? Because it was effective? Because it holds a mirror to the text and says "Here, look what this is saying!" Everything in the original post is invited by the text. That's the point. Instead of killing the messenger, who hasn't revealed his or her identity (who can blame the person), think about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of couse its distasteful. The original poster implied that Adam had sex with animals in his search for a mate. He also implied that God promoted bestiality because he created Adam without a mate. The Bible is cleary against bestiality (Exodus 22:19).

In addition, the original poster, used vulgar terms like "set" refering to Adam's genitalia. This is very disrespectful when refering to a text that is regarded as Holy to Muslims, Jews and Christians.

The English rendering of the verses in question reads:

"The Lord God said, "It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a hepler suitable for him." Genesis 2:18

This verse foreshadows the creation of Eve.

"So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam, no suitable helper could be found." Genesis 2:21

The idea of a "suitable helper" is Adams female counter part. Which God already announced He would create in Genesis 2:18. God brought all of the animals and presented them to Adam to name. Adam was the apex of God's creation and all had been created for him. He was given dominion over God's world. Ultimately, he was presented with his perfect counter-part, the woman. Together they would most accurately reflect the attributes of God. How someone could read bestiality into such a beautiful passage is disturbing.

About the messenger, if its Paul or Mathew, it is important. Its important because of their demand in the settlement against the Kearny BOE to bring in the Anti-Defamation League to speak to teachers and students. It would be the height of hypocrisy for Mathew and Paul to demand this at the expense of the tax payers of Kearny if they were responsible for a post deliberately "defaming" believers and accusing God of promoting bestiality.

By the way, to date, Paul has not denied that he or Mathew wrote the original post.

[Guest Paul]

Of couse its distasteful.  The original poster implied that Adam had sex with animals in his search for a mate.  He also implied that God promoted bestiality because he created Adam without a mate.  The Bible is cleary against bestiality (Exodus 22:19).

In addition, the original poster, used vulgar terms like "set" refering to Adam's genitalia.  This is very disrespectful when refering to a text that is regarded as Holy to Muslims, Jews and Christians.

The English rendering of the verses in question reads:

"The Lord God said, "It is not good for man to be alone.  I will make a hepler suitable for him."  Genesis 2:18

This verse foreshadows the creation of Eve.

"So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.  But for Adam, no suitable helper could be found."  Genesis 2:21

The idea of a "suitable helper" is Adams female counter part.  Which God already announced He would create in Genesis 2:18.  God brought all of the animals and presented them to Adam to name.  Adam was the apex of God's creation and all had been created for him.  He was given dominion over God's world.  Ultimately, he was presented with his perfect counter-part, the woman.  Together they would most accurately reflect the attributes of God.  How someone could read bestiality into such a beautiful passage is disturbing.

About the messenger, if its Paul or Mathew, it is important.  Its important because of their demand in the settlement against the Kearny BOE to bring in the Anti-Defamation League to speak to teachers and students.  It would be the height of hypocrisy for Mathew and Paul to demand this at the expense of the tax payers of Kearny if they were responsible for a post deliberately "defaming" believers and accusing God of promoting bestiality.

By the way, to date, Paul has not denied that he or Mathew wrote the original post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was offensive to you, but that is because it challenges your beliefs. You just said so. I say again, the text invites ridicule. The fact that you don't like it doesn't change the fact. Instead of drawing into your cocoon and reiterating your conclusions without any support whatsoever, address the points made:

1. Why was no woman created until the animals were found unsuitable? What does that even mean? Suitable how? And why no woman before this was found out?

2. In what sense were the animals to be Adam's "help meet?" It's your Bible, and since you don't like the suggestion made by the original post, it's up to you to clarify. The fact that you don't suggests that you can't, and that makes the post opening this topic all the more persuasive.

3. How do you explain the obvious contradiction in the order of creation?

And when don't address those questions, as you won't, how about considering the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the story is no more than that: it is a story, just like all the other stories from all the other religions that you don't accept.

You want to talk about offensive? I'll tell you what is offensive: It is the notion that there is a god who is going to cause people to suffer in eternal torment for sincerely being a member of a religious faith other than Christianity. It's not only offensive, it's divisive, disgusting and indefensible, and I'm not going to be quiet about the fact.

As to your remaining comments, we get to say anything we like about your religion on our own time. You're stretching as hard as you can to find a point to make, but you don't have one. Your last comment is incorrect.

[Guest Guest]

Of couse its distasteful.  The original poster implied that Adam had sex with animals in his search for a mate.  He also implied that God promoted bestiality because he created Adam without a mate.  The Bible is cleary against bestiality (Exodus 22:19).

In addition, the original poster, used vulgar terms like "set" refering to Adam's genitalia.  This is very disrespectful when refering to a text that is regarded as Holy to Muslims, Jews and Christians.

The English rendering of the verses in question reads:

"The Lord God said, "It is not good for man to be alone.  I will make a hepler suitable for him."  Genesis 2:18

This verse foreshadows the creation of Eve.

"So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.  But for Adam, no suitable helper could be found."  Genesis 2:21

The idea of a "suitable helper" is Adams female counter part.  Which God already announced He would create in Genesis 2:18.  God brought all of the animals and presented them to Adam to name.  Adam was the apex of God's creation and all had been created for him.  He was given dominion over God's world.  Ultimately, he was presented with his perfect counter-part, the woman.  Together they would most accurately reflect the attributes of God.  How someone could read bestiality into such a beautiful passage is disturbing.

About the messenger, if its Paul or Mathew, it is important.  Its important because of their demand in the settlement against the Kearny BOE to bring in the Anti-Defamation League to speak to teachers and students.  It would be the height of hypocrisy for Mathew and Paul to demand this at the expense of the tax payers of Kearny if they were responsible for a post deliberately "defaming" believers and accusing God of promoting bestiality.

By the way, to date, Paul has not denied that he or Mathew wrote the original post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The post that started this topic doesn't say anything about sex. Apparently you were able to infer that from the text, too. The text from Genesis talks about God making a woman to serve as a "help meet" to the man after the animals were found unsuitable. What conclusions do you expect to be drawn?

[Strife767]

The July issue of Harper's magazine includes an article on page 27 on this story. It starts with the following quotation from David Paszkiewicz in one of the September classes that was recorded.

David Paszkiewicz: "I'm going to keep this short --- every day we'll devote five minutes or so to you guys trying to make an atheist out of me."

Paszkiewicz wasn't being provoked into these discussions. He was planning on them. He said so himself. He said he was going to spend five minutes out of every class period discussing his religious beliefs.

You fundies manage to ignore reality and make things mean what you want them to mean, but how do you explain that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can't wait to see what the fundies conjure up in response to this.

[Strife767]

Of couse its distasteful.  The original poster implied that Adam had sex with animals in his search for a mate.  He also implied that God promoted bestiality because he created Adam without a mate.  The Bible is cleary against bestiality (Exodus 22:19).

And far be it from the Bible to EVER contradict itself, right?

Wrong: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

In addition, the original poster, used vulgar terms like "set" refering to Adam's genitalia.  This is very disrespectful when refering to a text that is regarded as Holy to Muslims, Jews and Christians.

You think the word "set" is more vulgar than naked drunkenness (Genesis 9:20-21), slavery (condoned in too many places to bother citing them all), the murdering by divine intervention/decree of over two million (http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-many-has-god-killed.html), and incestual marriage (Genesis 17:15, God blesses Abraham's marriage to his sister)?

You are out of your mind--how dare you put all of the crazy shit in this book on a pedestal, and have the gall to presume to tell others what's vulgar? I'm warning you, don't go down this haughty path--you will only embarass yourself, as the above 'vulgarities' are barely the tip of the iceberg, and I'm well aware of that.

The English rendering of the verses in question reads:

"The Lord God said, "It is not good for man to be alone.  I will make a hepler suitable for him."   Genesis 2:18

This verse foreshadows the creation of Eve.

"So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.  But for Adam, no suitable helper could be found."  Genesis 2:21

The idea of a "suitable helper" is Adams female counter part.  Which God already announced He would create in Genesis 2:18.  God brought all of the animals and presented them to Adam to name.

What about the fact that "but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him." was used to describe the animals? The implication is clear--Adam was offered each creature for a mate, but rejected them. The question is why, if as you claim, God was so sure the woman would be the "suitable helper."

Adam was the apex of God's creation and all had been created for him.  He was given dominion over God's world.  Ultimately, he was presented with his perfect counter-part, the woman.  Together they would most accurately reflect the attributes of God.  How someone could read bestiality into such a beautiful passage is disturbing.

How someone could think "a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filiacidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" is the ideal object of worship is far more disturbing.

About the messenger, if its Paul or Mathew, it is important.  Its important because of their demand in the settlement against the Kearny BOE to bring in the Anti-Defamation League to speak to teachers and students.  It would be the height of hypocrisy for Mathew and Paul to demand this at the expense of the tax payers of Kearny if they were responsible for a post deliberately "defaming" believers and accusing God of promoting bestiality.

Except that even if it was Paul or Matthew, it would be irrelevant because this isn't a public school classroom. Neither Matthew nor Paul would care if all of the things Paszkiewicz said in those classes were said here, or at his church instead, for example, because that would not cross the "wall of separation." How hard is it for you numbskulls to understand the difference between a public forum and a state-funded institution of learning?

By the way, to date, Paul has not denied that he or Mathew wrote the original post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He said that he seriously doubted it, that it wasn't his style, and that Matthew visits this site extremely rarely to boot.

Regardless, again, it wouldn't be hypocritical even if it was a LaClair for a very obvious and simple reason that apparently you're incapable of grasping.

[Bryan]

The document you're referring to is the one you insist we must all believe in on penanlty of eternal torment in the fiery hell of a loving-just-reallypissedoff god.

Don't be silly. I make no such insistence.

The text is taken from the KJV, which is the most popular and widely regarded version of the Bible, at least in the USA. If a better translation is available, I suggest that you alert the editors of the KJV lest they spend their eternity in heaven regretting (deeply, no doubt) the eternal fate of all those for whom their mistranslations brought on the penalty of hell.

Non sequitur. First, the KJV has been revised quite a number of times. Second, better translations are available, but you don't use "most popular" to figure out which one is the best translation (if you're smart, anyway).

One presumes the editors used the best available translation. Between their authority on the subject and Bryan's, I'll take theirs.

Taking 17th century scholarship over 20th century scholarship seems a bit silly, but I guess that's up to you.

Explaining something doesn't just mean that you declare it as a fact, especially when it isn't.

So you've declared that the NIV is inaccurate in its translation even when it isn't?

And the irony doesn't even occur to you?

An explanation is a logical progression of statements, and an explanation of this kind must be based on fact in order to be of any value. That is not what we are seeing from you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You don't see a logical progression from the fact that the NIV uses the past tense along with "had" as an indication that a past tense understanding of the passage is warranted?

Would you say that Paul failed to "explain" why Genesis 2 must be a chronological progression, using the same standard?

[Guest Lost and confused]

Of couse its distasteful.  The original poster implied that Adam had sex with animals in his search for a mate.  He also implied that God promoted bestiality because he created Adam without a mate.  The Bible is cleary against bestiality (Exodus 22:19).

In addition, the original poster, used vulgar terms like "set" refering to Adam's genitalia.  This is very disrespectful when refering to a text that is regarded as Holy to Muslims, Jews and Christians.

The English rendering of the verses in question reads:

"The Lord God said, "It is not good for man to be alone.  I will make a hepler suitable for him."  Genesis 2:18

This verse foreshadows the creation of Eve.

"So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.  But for Adam, no suitable helper could be found."  Genesis 2:21

The idea of a "suitable helper" is Adams female counter part.  Which God already announced He would create in Genesis 2:18.  God brought all of the animals and presented them to Adam to name.  Adam was the apex of God's creation and all had been created for him.  He was given dominion over God's world.  Ultimately, he was presented with his perfect counter-part, the woman.  Together they would most accurately reflect the attributes of God.  How someone could read bestiality into such a beautiful passage is disturbing.

About the messenger, if its Paul or Mathew, it is important.  Its important because of their demand in the settlement against the Kearny BOE to bring in the Anti-Defamation League to speak to teachers and students.  It would be the height of hypocrisy for Mathew and Paul to demand this at the expense of the tax payers of Kearny if they were responsible for a post deliberately "defaming" believers and accusing God of promoting bestiality.

By the way, to date, Paul has not denied that he or Mathew wrote the original post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First, I want to say that I’m very sorry that some people were offended by my questions. But honestly, I looked at the first two chapters in Genesis, and even the third, and I still have the same questions. No one seems to be answering them.

I appreciate what you’re saying about God wanting to make a companion for Adam, and of course it makes sense to most of us that this would be a woman. It could be a man, but let’s not get into that. That doesn’t explain why in Genesis 2:20, after Adam named all the animals, it says “there was not found an help meet for him.”

Was that a surprise? That’s how it’s written, so if that’s not what it means, then why write it that way? It’s so obvious that the animals couldn’t furnish the man human companionship, why is it even in the text?

And why is this written as though the woman is an afterthought? Was this really written under God’s divine inspiration, or is it just another in the long line of such stories, written by superstitious and primitive men who didn’t even think women were on the same level as men? Isn’t that exactly what people thought this meant for centuries until just very recently? Why change the traditional interpretation now? And if we do change interpretations this drastically, then how can we say that the Bible is the inerrant and unchanging word of God? What is a reasonable person who is doing everything she can to do the right thing supposed to think?

You can’t say that “help meet” means a donkey to pull the plow because the man didn’t have to do any work until after he and the woman ate the forbidden fruit, so one person’s argument about the animals being created as beasts of burden doesn’t make any sense to me. There weren’t any burdens at that time. It was Paradise, remember?

So if the animals were supposed to be Adam’s “help meet,” but not in the sense of doing work, then what does that “help meet” mean? And what was the woman able to do for him that the animals couldn’t do and wasn’t obvious before they were created? You can’t say keep him company because we all know the animals couldn’t do that in the first place, so God would never have created them thinking that they could. Of course, he could have turned them into very smart animals capable of speaking, but he didn't, except on a few occasions where Balaam's ass spoke to him. And as for saying that Adam could eat the animals but not the woman, let’s not even go there. In the first place, according to early Genesis, God never told Adam he could eat any of the animals, and even if he had, meat was actually something the animals could supply to him that --- well, let’s just say the woman shouldn’t be used for that. So what was God hoping the animals could do for Adam, which he found out after he created them that they couldn’t do, and so he created the woman? That’s what these verses say, and that’s what I don’t understand.

As for what looks like an obvious contradiction between Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 on the order of creation, if Gen. 2 wasn’t intended to be a chronological account, then why is it told in story form, implying a chronology? How can the writing be so unclear, if that’s what you’re saying it is, if it was divinely inspired?

What really bothers me, though, is that instead of really trying to answer these questions, God’s people got angry and tried to act like none of this is really in the writing. But it is. I can see it with my own eyes. I figured maybe I was misunderstanding it, so I called myself Lost and Confused. I was hoping for a good explanation, but what has happened so far is that people have gotten angry at how I asked the questions.

Who needs help more than the person who first doesn’t understand God’s word, and second makes fun of it? Just calmly help me understand all of this if you can.

[Bryan]

It was offensive to you, but that is because it challenges your beliefs. You just said so. I say again, the text invites ridicule. The fact that you don't like it doesn't change the fact. Instead of drawing into your cocoon and reiterating your conclusions without any support whatsoever, address the points made:

1. Why was no woman created until the animals were found unsuitable? What does that even mean? Suitable how? And why no woman before this was found out?

Let's go through it again, then.

A ) ANE literature tends to be more topical than chronological

B ) The naming of the animals emphasizes the difference between man and animal

C ) The unsuitability of the animals as helper to Adam is most reasonably understood as the author's assessment, not as an attempt to read the mind of God (which Paul would have thinking "Hmmm. The iguana won't make a suitable helper for Adam, either.")

2. In what sense were the animals to be Adam's "help meet?" It's your Bible, and since you don't like the suggestion made by the original post, it's up to you to clarify. The fact that you don't suggests that you can't, and that makes the post opening this topic all the more persuasive.

Paul offers no reason why it should be expected that the animals were to be Adam's "help meet". He infers it, certainly, but without justification from the text other than his insistence that it must be chronological and must represent a logical progression from one sentence to the next (so much for chiastic patterns!). All Paul does here is underscore his provincial attitude toward the text.

The text has been clarified. Paul doesn't like it, so he insists that it hasn't been clarified.

3. How do you explain the obvious contradiction in the order of creation?

And when don't address those questions, as you won't, how about considering the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the story is no more than that: it is a story, just like all the other stories from all the other religions that you don't accept.

There is no "obvious contradiction" in the order of creation because

A ) The second chapter doesn't attempt to provide any chronology to creation events

B ) Each of the created things mentioned in Chapter 2 is mentioned using different words from those used in the first chapter.

Usually there's a reason for using different words. That reason is fairly clear in the case of animals and plants "of the field." In the case of the birds, the reason for the difference isn't known. Paul proceeds under the assumption that the difference has no significance.

You want to talk about offensive? I'll tell you what is offensive: It is the notion that there is a god who is going to cause people to suffer in eternal torment for sincerely being a member of a religious faith other than Christianity. It's not only offensive, it's divisive, disgusting and indefensible, and I'm not going to be quiet about the fact.

... except when it comes to supporting the notion of an "objective" and "universal" system of values that might lend some evidential support to what otherwise is a fallacious appeal to outrage.

[Guest Guest]

Except that even if it was Paul or Matthew, it would be irrelevant because this isn't a public school classroom. Neither Matthew nor Paul would care if all of the things Paszkiewicz said in those classes [COLOR=red]were said here, or at his church instead, [/color]for example, because that would not cross the "wall of separation." How hard is it for you numbskulls to understand the difference between a public forum and a state-funded institution of learning?

He said that he seriously doubted it, that it wasn't his style, and that Matthew visits this site extremely rarely to boot.

Did you forget that the LaClairs gave one of Mr. Ps sermons (preached in his church) to the Observer in an effort to slander him and jeapardize his employment.

[Guest Guest]

Except that even if it was Paul or Matthew, it would be irrelevant because this isn't a public school classroom. Neither Matthew nor Paul would care if all of the things Paszkiewicz said in those classes [COLOR=red]were said here, or at his church instead, [/color]for example, because that would not cross the "wall of separation." How hard is it for you numbskulls to understand the difference between a public forum and a state-funded institution of learning?

He said that he seriously doubted it, that it wasn't his style, and that Matthew visits this site extremely rarely to boot.

Did you forget that the LaClairs gave one of Mr. Ps sermons (preached in his church) to the Observer in an effort to slander him and jeapardize his employment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How did the LaClairs get hold of one of Paszkiewicz's sermons? Are you sure you have your facts straight? I don't think you do.

Publication of Paszkiewicz's sermon slandered him? Then he slandered himself. Do you have any idea what you're saying? It doesn't look like it.

[Guest Guest]

First, the KJV has been revised quite a number of times.  Second, better translations are available, but you don't use "most popular" to figure out which one is the best translation (if you're smart, anyway).

Taking 17th century scholarship over 20th century scholarship seems a bit silly, but I guess that's up to you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why was it revised? If it was the inspired word of God, it should have been perfect the first time. It's true that we would generally prefer 20th century scholarship over 17th century scholarship, but that assumes that knowledge advances over time. With something like what the Bible is claimed to be, that wouldn't be true. Just the opposite, the best scholarship would be that closest to the actual revelations. The very fact that this isn't the pattern suggests that people who claim to believe in the Bible don't really believe it themselves, deep down.

[Guest Guest]

Would you say that Paul failed to "explain" why Genesis 2 must be a chronological progression, using the same standard?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. Paul doesn't appear to be stuck on trying to reduce everything to a deductive logical gimmie. He seems to recognize, as most of us do, that while logic is important to reason, it isn't the whole of it. We also have to employ our experience and our understanding of what things are and what they mean.

The conclusion that Genesis 2 is a chronoligical account follows from the writing itself. It's told that way. Your interpretation strains the reading beyond credulity.

[Strife767]

Did you forget that the LaClairs gave one of Mr. Ps sermons (preached in his church) to the Observer in an effort to slander him and jeapardize his employment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, assuming he did that (which he probably didn't, as the majority of random accusations I've seen on this site directed toward him or a member of his family have been found to be completely false fabrications), how is that slander? Do you know what slander means? Something has to be knowingly false to be slander--if Paul actually sent a transcript of a sermon that Paszkiewicz preached at his church, that's not slander, doofus.

Try learning the definition of something before you accuse someone of it, okay? I'm not surprised you didn't attach a name to such an embarassing accusation.

[Guest Paul]

Except that even if it was Paul or Matthew, it would be irrelevant because this isn't a public school classroom. Neither Matthew nor Paul would care if all of the things Paszkiewicz said in those classes [COLOR=red]were said here, or at his church instead, [/color]for example, because that would not cross the "wall of separation." How hard is it for you numbskulls to understand the difference between a public forum and a state-funded institution of learning?

He said that he seriously doubted it, that it wasn't his style, and that Matthew visits this site extremely rarely to boot.

Did you forget that the LaClairs gave one of Mr. Ps sermons (preached in his church) to the Observer in an effort to slander him and jeapardize his employment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He couldn't have forgotten it because it isn't true. I thought about whether to respond to this post. Many think all that does is dignify the attack. I decided to respond because I still have faith in your capacity as a human being to act more honestly about this situation than you have in the past, and in particular with a post like the one above. Please listen carefully because what I have to say to you is important.

I remember the story breaking about Mr. Paszkiewicz’s sermon. That was the one where he complained that religion is kept out of the public schools. That information came to me from the reporter, who found an outline of the sermon online and called me to ask for comment before running the story. I am not the one who uncovered that information, nor did anyone in my family. So you just bore false witness against me yet again.

I have to tell you, the more I see and read from people supporting Mr. Paszkiewicz, many of whom are obviously members of his church, the more disgusted I am. You claim to worship God, and then just flat out lie about my family and me over and over and over again. Why don’t you sit with each other and talk it over carefully and calmly? Because I’ll tell you what, if there is a god who punishes people for doing bad things, you’re going to have some answering to do. Be careful what you wish for. You might not really want it.

We said quite a few things about Mr. Paszkiewicz during all this, and some of it didn’t paint a pretty picture, but every word of it was true. You didn’t want it to be true, but it was. All of it. And if Mr. Paszkiewicz was slandered by his own sermon, his own words --- do you really need me to draw the conclusion for you? He put them on the internet, or his church did. And you want to blame me? What is wrong with you? All that says is that it didn't turn out the way you and he would have hoped, but that is because he took his religious beliefs, which he has every right to express in church and on the street, and tried to push them in his classroom, where he is a paid public employee.

I remember very well the big fuss on KOTW about the meeting in Mr. Somma’s office. You folks were all over me, taunting me to produce a recording of the meeting and calling me a liar for the absence of a recording. And then Mr. Paszkiewicz wrote a letter, which the Observer published, claiming he had been truthful in that meeting. In effect, he was calling Matthew a liar. So Matthew produced the recording, proving that everything he had said about Mr. Paszkiewicz’s remarks in that meeting was true. You folks shut up real fast about it after that, but I didn’t get any apologies and neither did Matthew. I thought you considered pride a vice. So why no humility in the form of an apology? And then you wonder why people call you hypocrites. You earn every ounce of it, and more. Most people don't bother because they think you're lost causes. That's what I had to overcome to post this at all.

Now read slowly and carefully because here's the important part.

With all your claims about being holy, you seem to have no sense of right and wrong. The way you express it, religion seems like something you use to sing yourself to sleep with at night, your version of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “lalalalalalalalala” at the top of your lungs so you can close out the world and ignore what is really going on. When someone makes a point against you that you can't answer, you don't think about it and change your mind; you just ignore the point and pretend it was never said. "Lalalalalalala I'm not listening!" Shame on you.

You people don’t get it. You think I’m against religion. I’m not. I am deeply religious. I’m against what you’re doing to religion and to the world.

There’s nothing religious about what you’re doing. Religion brings all things together in harmony. What you’re doing is dividing, and you can’t even follow some of your own most basic commandments. I’m not just saying I disagree with you. I’m saying you’re doing a lot of harm. Why else would you say things about my son and me that aren’t true, over and over and over and over again, with no apparent sense of shame or contrition even after it is pointed out to you? Why? What does that tell you about the religion you claim to be practicing? Before you pass judgment on that, think about it. We need you as part of our society and our country, and if you don't measure up to your moral responsibility, we all pay the price. Please pass this on to your church.

Most sincerely,

Paul LaClair

[Guest Keith-Marshall.Mo]

Except that even if it was Paul or Matthew, it would be irrelevant because this isn't a public school classroom. Neither Matthew nor Paul would care if all of the things Paszkiewicz said in those classes [COLOR=red]were said here, or at his church instead, [/color]for example, because that would not cross the "wall of separation." How hard is it for you numbskulls to understand the difference between a public forum and a state-funded institution of learning?

He said that he seriously doubted it, that it wasn't his style, and that Matthew visits this site extremely rarely to boot.

Did you forget that the LaClairs gave one of Mr. Ps sermons (preached in his church) to the Observer in an effort to slander him and jeapardize his employment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How could it be slander if it were Mr. P's own words?