Genesis and Gender

[djeter]

"All too often, I think people read Genesis 1:27 as actually affirming binary gender as something which is somehow divinely ordained–that God personally, actively, and deliberately separated the human species into male and female, all by Godself. But I think that’s a bad interpretation.

My assumptions: the reference to the imago dei in Gen. 1:27 comes towards the end of what is the first of two creation narratives in Genesis. Gen. 1:1-2:3 is called by scholars the “Priestly” account; Genesis 2:4-25ff is called the “Yahwist.” Both stories represent the result of many generations of oral tradition which were ultimately compiled together in the work that would come to be known as the Book of Genesis.

The primary purpose of both narratives, but especially the Priestly account, is etiological: it explains how and why the world came into being. I don’t think it’s intended to explain what came into being at all; the ancient Hebrews simply could look around to see that. Of course, the “what” needed to be described in order to discuss the how and the why, and the ancient Hebrews did so in the languuage which was available to them, but I don’t think the Priestly account is really making an ontological point at all. The Priestly account doesn’t tell us that God created birds on the fifth day in order to explain that there is a such thing as “birdness” which all those flying things have in common (leading one to wonder whether non-flying birds like ostriches, and fying mammals like bats, were created on the fifth or sixth day); it does so to explain where all those flying things (whatever we want to call them and however we wish to classify them) came from. Trying to force metaphysics onto the myth seems to be doing it a great disservice, especially if one believes that ideologically-neutral “textualist” or “functionalist” readings are available to a reader.

I’d argue that the mention of gender in 1:27 is functionally equivalent to the mention of avians in 1:20-24: “men” and “women” were categories which were already experientially present to the ancient Hebrews. That men and women existed was already stipulated, rightly or wrongly; they didn’t need oral tradition to tell them that. The creation narrative would thus have functioned to explain where both genders came from–from God–rather than to assign them some type of eternal, unchanging essence.

If we assume the opposite, that Gen. 1:27 is detailing some sort of deliberate “creation” of gender and/or gendered differences (prominent marriage equality opponent Maggie Gallagher describes it as “the idea that God himself [sic] made man [sic] as male and female and commanded men and women to come together in a special way to image the fruitfulness of God”), then we’re left with the uncomfortable question of just what was the deal with all those birds and fish that were created (the story goes) on the fifth day. Did the ancient Hebrews assume they just sort of existed genderlessly until the sixth day?

Why mention gender in 1:27 at all, then? Part of me thinks this question is wrongheaded–we might just as well ask why 1:20-24 mentions birds specifically. But insofar as we read Genesis as making a more profound point about men and women than it is about fish and sea creatures, I think the point is to make it explicit that men and women shared equally in the imago dei. Granted that the overall culture would have been a patriarchal one, I don’t think this reading is in any way anachronistic, or at least not inherently so. Since Genesis is a compilation of often contradictory oral traditions, we shouldn’t be surprised to find a proto-feminist sentiment lurking among the patriarchalism. Furthermore, there’s plenty of patriarchal notions which are simultaneously deeply sexist but still (arguably) compatible with the notion of equal participation in the imago dei–for example, the notion of two separate but equal spheres.

Of course, as moderns and post moderns we do not look to Genesis as etiological in the same way as did those who were actually shaping those oral traditions. For us, the spiritual truth testified to in Genesis 1 that all of creation is God-breathed is in some sense divorceable from any sense of Genesis 1 (or Genesis 2) as historical or scientific fact. But the spiritual truth is still a truth about a relationship between God and the world–that God is the ground and source of all being–and not one about the contents or structure of that world.

We don’t construct our taxonomies of nature based on a division between “flying birds,” “sea creatures,” and “land animals,” but based on (if you accept evolution, which I’m hoping you do) DNA and evolutionary processes and so on or (if you don’t accept natural selection) fundamental similarities in anatomic structures, so that (for example) bats and whales are both mammals, ostriches and penguins are birds, etc. We recognize that the storytellers which passed down the Priestly creation story were expressing a profound spiritual truth using a pre-scientific language.

Furthermore, we don’t consider even our more scientific classifications to represent ontological essences, but simply convenient ways of structuring our knowledge of the natural world. That the platypus is a mammal which happens to lay eggs isn’t something that many lose all that much sleep over, nor should they. It’s an example of the limitation of human systems of categorization, not a transgression against some law of nature, be it divine or scientific.

<There’s more coming>

---

The above piece of exegesis is cleverly taking us into considerations on modern gender. I think you see where it is going. Can you help me explain to others why it is wrong?

Thanks

dj

 

[djeter]

It seems to me that the same approach is appropriate in terms of gender. Male and female are categories which we use, for good or ill, to structure the way we think (and which the ancient Hebrews certainly used to structure the way they thought) of human (and non-human animal) diversity, in much the same way that “bird,” “fish,” and “mammal” are used to structure our understanding of a different type of animal diversity. But these are no more divinely-ordained categories than are “bird,” “fish,” and “mammal,” and nothing in Genesis 1 should make us think that they are. Rather we recognize that they were using their own flawed patriarchal language, lacking the concepts of “intersexed” and “genderqueer,” to express a powerful truth as best as they were able, that every human being–male, female, intersexed, and/or genderqueer–is reflective of the divine.

Now, I’m most certainly not arguing that the Hebrews wanted to include intersexed and genderqueer individuals in their understanding of the imago dei but simply lacked the language to do so. I think that’s incoherent: language determines thought, and while it’s possible that they might have had some sense of non-binary sex/gender (after all, intersexed individuals would have existed, as would–presumably–those who transgressed strict gender roles), I don’t think there’s any evidence as to how they cognized it. Rather, my claim is that the exclusion of people non-binary sex and/or gender is indicative of the categories they were using to tell the story and is not the point of the story. In other words, the intent of the ancient Hebrews would have been completely neutral in regards to intersexed and genderqueer individuals, because intersexed and genderqueer are 21st-century Western labels.

Obviously, there’s some sense in which the Hebrews intent was to say that every human being was reflective of God because that’s what literally the passage says (unless maybe we assume the imago dei can be lost in some way–technically, the passage only claims that the primordial, created humans, the ones about whom we argue whether or not they had belly buttons, were so reflective). What’s not clear is what that doctrine of imago dei meant to them.

I take it as read that it didn’t mean to them that all people were equally the children of God, for the tribe of Israel was called to a special status. It certainly didn’t mean that people were socially and politically equal: after all, this was not only a deeply patriarchal society, but a society in which slavery was (and/or would be) permitted. But even in the later codes which legislated the conduct of how to keep slaves, one sees a tension between the notion that slaves are human too and thus befitting of dignity, and an “us vs. them” mentality where there are winners and losers. I think there’s a sense that this tension runs thoughout the entirety of the Hebrew Scriptures.

It sort of makes sense that the primordial created humans in 1:27 would need to be both male and female: we can imagine an ur-Human from which all races ultimately derive, but–especially under the binary understanding of gender which the Hebrews inherited–it’s harder to imagine an ur-human which includes all of both genders (sort of like the description of Lilith in Bernard Shaw’s Back to Methuselah).

There isn’t of course, one single univocal intent shared by all the ancient Hebrews or even represented in all of Hebrew Scripture, which is why I don’t think its problematic to hypothesize it might represent a piece of proto-feminist thought even in the context of a patriarchal culture. But I’m also comfortable acknowledging it is a hypothesis. I don’t claim to be able to read the minds of the ancient Hebrews, nor do I think it’s necessary, so I’d be okay with my interpretation of the doctrine of imago dei as ultimately being more rehabillitative than exegetical, more about our relationship with Scripture as 21st-century post/moderns, with the entire history of Church tradition to draw upon, than the ancient Hebrews’.

But I also put forth a second (well, actually, it comes first above) alternate understanding of the imago dei: that it has absolutely nothing at all to do with gender, that the text could just as easily have read “in the image of the gods, God created them; green-eyed and brown-eyed, God created them” or “tall and short, fat and thin, God created them” with absolutely no change in doctrinal implications, just like I don’t think the meaning of the creation story would be fundamentally changed if God created invertebrates on the fifth day and verterbrates on the sixth, instead of birds and fish on the fith and land animals on the sixth. The reading of the imago-dei as proto-feminist is to offer a possible explanation for those who might argue that they don’t think the Hebrews would mention gender in that formulation if they didn’t have something to say about it profound. My first answer is still that the Hebrews didn’t have much profound to say about birds or sea creatures or land animals, but I think the argument is that the closeness to the mention of the imago dei accords a special signifigance to the division being male and female which the division between birds and sea creatures and land animals simply lacks.

 

[djeter]

My fundamental argument here isn’t a positive argument about what Genesis 1:27 means but a negative argument: whatever the function of Gen. 1:27 was in the culture in which it was formulated (and I stand by my point that the primary function is simply to tell a story of creation and really has very little to do with gender at all), it wasn’t to represent male-female relations as divinely ordered, that it’s illegitimate for people with a more conservative view of Scripture than my own to use the passage as some sort of proof-text against same-sex marriage. I think putting forth a plausible alternate positive reading of the imago dei helps me make the negative argument, but it’s ultimately secondary."

---

I think this is some college paper that the fellow wrote and is using online (at BeliefNet). He is an Episcopalian FWIW

 

[Barbkw]

“All too often, I think people read Genesis 1:27 as actually affirming binary gender as something which is somehow divinely ordained–that God personally, actively, and deliberately separated the human species into male and female, all by Godself. But I think that’s a bad interpretation.”

All of the author’s thought on “binary gender” vs. “non-binary sex and/or gender” is quickly dispelled when reading the next paragraph in Genesis, “Go forth and multiply.”

How many children are produced when men have sex with men? Or when, women have sex with women?

 

[djeter]

“All too often, I think people read Genesis 1:27 as actually affirming binary gender as something which is somehow divinely ordained–that God personally, actively, and deliberately separated the human species into male and female, all by Godself. But I think that’s a bad interpretation.”

All of the author’s thought on “binary gender” vs. “non-binary sex and/or gender” is quickly dispelled when reading the next paragraph in Genesis, “Go forth and multiply.”

How many children are produced when men have sex with men? Or when, women have sex with women?

But in multiplying, did this cause “intersexed” or “genderqueer” individuals? Did this cause genders to be created beyond the male/female noted in Genesis? You see, the homosexual activists, unable to point to a gay gene are now engaging in a backdoor reading of Genesis that would allow for this interpretation. Clever, but why is it wrong?

dj

 

[Barbkw]

Various people in power and tow in some Episcopal churches (laity, ordinate, theologians) have successfully changed Scripture within their church to suit the sexual needs of noncelibate same sex attracted people.

(I was reading a blog at “Not Another Episcopalian Blog” and a man was writing that his parish was taking a census vote on changes they wanted at their church, including items such as inclusive language, homosexuality, ordaining noncelibate homosexuals, etc.)



From Wikipedia:

"Today the (Episcolpal) Church calls for the full civil equality of gay men and lesbians. Most dioceses ordain openly gay men and women; in some, same-sex unions are celebrated with services of blessing.

In 2009, the Church’s General Convention passed resolutions that allowed for gay and lesbian marriages in states where it is legal.[10]

On the question of abortion, the Church has adopted a nuanced position.

About all these issues, individual members and clergy can and do frequently disagree with the stated position of the Church.

The Episcopal Church ordains women to the priesthood as well as the diaconate and the episcopate. The current Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church is Katharine Jefferts Schori, the first female primate in the Anglican Communion."

 

[Barbkw]

But in multiplying, did this cause “intersexed” or “genderqueer” individuals? Did this cause genders to be created beyond the male/female noted in Genesis? You see, the homosexual activists, unable to point to a gay gene are now engaging in a backdoor reading of Genesis that would allow for this interpretation. Clever, but why is it wrong?

dj

Well, in that there is no “gay” gene, the question is where else could gender confusion originate.

Catholic psychologists say that gender confusion begins in children at a young age and when its treated early it’s reversable.

Currently, in our society, the homosexual agenda refuses any suggestion that treatment is necessary for these children or that gender confusion is a disorder.

 

[Contarini]

My fundamental argument here isn’t a positive argument about what Genesis 1:27 means but a negative argument: whatever the function of Gen. 1:27 was in the culture in which it was formulated (and I stand by my point that the primary function is simply to tell a story of creation and really has very little to do with gender at all), it wasn’t to represent male-female relations as divinely ordered, that it’s illegitimate for people with a more conservative view of Scripture than my own to use the passage as some sort of proof-text against same-sex marriage. I think putting forth a plausible alternate positive reading of the imago dei helps me make the negative argument, but it’s ultimately secondary."

---

I think this is some college paper that the fellow wrote and is using online (at BeliefNet). He is an Episcopalian FWIW

I don’t know how you know that it’s a “college paper,” but at any rate, the huge flaw in his analysis is that he doesn’t tackle Jesus’ use of this passage in Matthew 19.

That’s where I would base my opposition to same-sex “marriage,” more than on Genesis itself (which isn’t enough for more or less the reasons he gives).

 

[TimothyH]

When man and woman freely give themselves to each other in spousal union, it produces a third person - a child. This is what Pope John Paul II called the “Primordial sacrament”, Remember that a sacrament uses things which are visible to reveal invisible, spiritual and divine truths.

Just as man and woman freely giving themselves to each other in love produces a child, the perfect interchange of self-sacrificing love which takes place between the Father and the Son in Heaven produces the Holy Spirit. Catholics bear testimony to the fact that the perfect self giving love between the first and second persons of the Trinity produces the third prerson of the Trinity in our most basic statement of our faith which is the creed.

We believe in the Holy Spirit
The Lord, the Giver of Life
Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The fact that the Holy Spirit proceedes from the Father and Son’s perfect interchange of self-giving and self-sacrificing love is basic trinitarian theology and is revealed to man in a visble way by the manner in which God ordered man and woman. How man and woman love each other in spousal union, giving themselves freely and totally to each other, and how that union of love produces a child, reveals to us the invisible, spiritual and divine truth of how the Father and the Son love each other in Heaven and produce the Holy Spirit. Spousal union reveals to us the most innermost workings of the trinity!

Spousal Union:

Man + Woman = Child reveals Father + Son = Holy Spirit. Man and Woman, in a gift of total commitment to each other (marriage), making the perfect offering to each other (spousal union) producing a child reveals to us the perfect love between God the Father and God the Son, totally committed to each other, producing the Holy Spirit.

Naked and without shame
The fact that Adam and Eve were “Naked and without shame” reveals to us that God the Father and God the son are completely known to each other, nothing hidden, completely vulnerable to each otther.

Dominion over the Earth
The fact that God blessed Adam and Eve, commissioning them to multiply and fill the earth and have dominion over it reveals to us the Holy Spirit having dominion over all creation and over all life.

***And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion *over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." (Genesis 1:28)

One Flesh
The fact that man and woman “Become one flesh” reveals to us the substantial union between God the Father and God the Son. They are not just united as Father and Son, but are one flesh, one substance, one God. As Jesus said…

*The Father and I are one. (John 10:30)*I could go on but I think eveyone will get the point.

In calling spousal union the “Primordial sacrament”, Pope John Paul II points out that It is the number one way in which humans not only know about the innermost workings of the Trinity, but experience it in our own lives. The love between God the Father and God the Son is not just an objective truth which we understand, but a subjective reality which we experience in a very real and very powerful (a-hem!) way through the sacramentality of our male and female bodies. The self sacrificing love which takes place between God the Father and God the Son in Heaven becomes therefor not only our model for spousal union but the way in which we (are supposed to) experience trinitarian love prior to actually getting into Heaven and taking part in the beatific vision - union with the Trinity- ourselves. our masculinity and femininity even reflect the Father and Son’s giving and receiving of Love.

To claim, as the author of the piece quoted does, that the writer of Genesis 1:27 could have stated “green eyes and blue eyes he created them” as easily as he did “male and female he created them” is an absurdity which shows a very shallow understanding of trinitarian theology and the sacramental nature of all of creation, man and woman inclusive and especially.

As a final note, the author of the article quoted seems to ignore the fact that God himself is the primary author of scripture. Everything in scripture is there for a reason. God, as the primary author of Scripture, was not just classifying people into categories nor was the human writer simply noting his own observation about the major visible differeneces between individuals. The same Holy Spirit who is the primary author of scripture wanted us to know something about himself.

-Tim-

 

[edwest2]

Adding modern or post-modern thinking or analysis to the Bible does not help. After the Fall, we are told that things on earth began to deteriorate. Adam and Eve were made with certain gifts. The ancient writers were not making things up as they went along. The self-created cultural aspects idea ignores the fact that everything in the Bible was inspired by God. The idea that any of this is pre-scientific ignores the idea that God, as God, can do things human beings of today cannot do.

In Matthew 19:12, Jesus tells us that some eunuchs were born that way.

bible.cc/matthew/19-12.htm

I know it’s hard to understand, but death and deformity entered Creation after Original Sin, including the tendency of all of us toward sin. Science, which today, must ignore the supernatural, cannot tell us this. God can.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Crumpy]

I’m just starting to read a book on the “theology of the body.”

The book is titled “man and woman he created them” by John Paul II, Pauline Books, 2006.

It deals with the subject in the original posts TimothyH has already mentioned a few highlights (I think).

But, the OP should be referred to this book for a much more detailed analysis of the subject than will ever be possible on this website.

=================existentially we encounter people who have issues or problems with gender identification. The first thing we need to say is that those things are not understood scientifically, in any detail. But, yes, scripture comes down to us with clear commandments about the behavior of people who have gender identification issues.

The arguments presented in the Bible are for people, not animals. The Bible is intended as a guide to spirituality for all people. Modern Judaism speaks more frankly about the animal nature or animal side of our being. It talks about the “evil inclination” which – yes – God created in us.

It’s not new for anybody to try to unravel the intention of scripture, in one way or another.

Judaism teaches us a lesson in the very term “Torah” that they apply to the first five books of the Bible, which actually means “instruction.” If you go to look at 2 Tim 3:16-17, it also has the harmonious idea of “all” scripture being useful for teaching, which is to say, “instruction.”

There is simply no authentic way to turn scripture inside out to justify same sex unions. You can come up with those in various ways, but not by following scripture.

Judaism, itself, abhors homosexuality, but not people. It says, by the way, that the Torah only applies to Jews, not to Gentiles (see Abraham Cohen, Everybody’s Talmud). So, you could opt out of the prohibitions on homosexuality in Leviticus with this argument. But, Christianity upholds those prohibitions.

 

[djeter]

I don’t know how you know that it’s a “college paper,” but at any rate, the huge flaw in his analysis is that he doesn’t tackle Jesus’ use of this passage in Matthew 19.

That’s where I would base my opposition to same-sex “marriage,” more than on Genesis itself (which isn’t enough for more or less the reasons he gives).

You didn’t give us the passage,Contarini, but is this it?

"They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” 8He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.” 10His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 12For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

“Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given." suggests to me that eunuchs or intersexed individuals find themselves in a special position that may have arisen from three circumstances: a disorder at birth, forced mutilation by others and their own choice – which is described as “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”

Fr. Barron suggests that in the beatitudes we can reach an understanding of the proscriptions (Blessed are the poor, those who grieve, etc.) by considering the alternative: you are blessed or lucky to be poor because it will prevent you from material attachments, you are blessed or lucky to be grieving because you have loved someone deeply – imagine not having loved them at all or being so addicted to “happy feelings” that you are prevented from experiencing the depth and healinig nature of grief.

I’ve often thought to myself of what the “blessed” is for being intersexed or homosexual: Blessed are the homosexuals for they shall be challenged by living lives of chastity? Or not falling into the many sexual traps our culture lays for us?

But homosexuals now seem to have their own set of traps, most created by the activists like CJBanning here who willfully misinterpret scripture to create justifications for living a life preying on others and committing the homosexual acts that Catholic Teaching holds are sinful.

I found this on a blog: "Throughout His ministry, Jesus used marital references to illustrate His concepts. As Jesus presented it, there was no earthly relationship that more closely resembled that which God desired with His creation than marriage. The unconditional love, the passion, the commitment, the intimacy; these are all ideals presented throughout scripture describing how God desires to relate to us.

The problem was, in Jesus’ time (and ours), the people had lost the essence of what the marriage relationship was supposed to be. Like with other matters, the people had become concerned with legalistic obeisance rather than faithful following. Not surprisingly, that created incentives for finding loopholes.

Jesus again begins with His rhetorical motif: “You have heard…” Once again, Jesus contrasts the letter of the law with an instruction to go beyond the mere letter."

I thought it was a college paper because it has a sense of argument to it that one doesn’t find in the usual internet forum postings. I’ve asked him where he got this stuff, wondering who is putting it out – it could be original with him, though.

dj

 

[djeter]

When man and woman freely give themselves to each other in spousal union, it produces a third person - a child. This is what Pope John Paul II called the “Primordial sacrament”, Remember that a sacrament uses things which are visible to reveal invisible, spiritual and divine truths.

Just as man and woman freely giving themselves to each other in love produces a child, the perfect interchange of self-sacrificing love which takes place between the Father and the Son in Heaven produces the Holy Spirit. Catholics bear testimony to the fact that the perfect self giving love between the first and second persons of the Trinity produces the third prerson of the Trinity in our most basic statement of our faith which is the creed.

We believe in the Holy Spirit
The Lord, the Giver of Life
Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The fact that the Holy Spirit proceedes from the Father and Son’s perfect interchange of self-giving and self-sacrificing love is basic trinitarian theology and is revealed to man in a visble way by the manner in which God ordered man and woman. How man and woman love each other in spousal union, giving themselves freely and totally to each other, and how that union of love produces a child, reveals to us the invisible, spiritual and divine truth of how the Father and the Son love each other in Heaven and produce the Holy Spirit. Spousal union reveals to us the most innermost workings of the trinity!

Spousal Union:

Man + Woman = Child reveals Father + Son = Holy Spirit. Man and Woman, in a gift of total commitment to each other (marriage), making the perfect offering to each other (spousal union) producing a child reveals to us the perfect love between God the Father and God the Son, totally committed to each other, producing the Holy Spirit.

Naked and without shame
The fact that Adam and Eve were “Naked and without shame” reveals to us that God the Father and God the son are completely known to each other, nothing hidden, completely vulnerable to each otther.

Dominion over the Earth
The fact that God blessed Adam and Eve, commissioning them to multiply and fill the earth and have dominion over it reveals to us the Holy Spirit having dominion over all creation and over all life.

***And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion ***over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:28)

One Flesh
The fact that man and woman “Become one flesh” reveals to us the substantial union between God the Father and God the Son. They are not just united as Father and Son, but are one flesh, one substance, one God. As Jesus said…

The Father and I are one. (John 10:30)I could go on but I think eveyone will get the point.

In calling spousal union the “Primordial sacrament”, Pope John Paul II points out that It is the number one way in which humans not only know about the innermost workings of the Trinity, but experience it in our own lives. The love between God the Father and God the Son is not just an objective truth which we understand, but a subjective reality which we experience in a very real and very powerful (a-hem!) way through the sacramentality of our male and female bodies. The self sacrificing love which takes place between God the Father and God the Son in Heaven becomes therefor not only our model for spousal union but the way in which we (are supposed to) experience trinitarian love prior to actually getting into Heaven and taking part in the beatific vision - union with the Trinity- ourselves. our masculinity and femininity even reflect the Father and Son’s giving and receiving of Love.

To claim, as the author of the piece quoted does, that the writer of Genesis 1:27 could have stated “green eyes and blue eyes he created them” as easily as he did “male and female he created them” is an absurdity which shows a very shallow understanding of trinitarian theology and the sacramental nature of all of creation, man and woman inclusive and especially.

As a final note, the author of the article quoted seems to ignore the fact that God himself is the primary author of scripture. Everything in scripture is there for a reason. God, as the primary author of Scripture, was not just classifying people into categories nor was the human writer simply noting his own observation about the major visible differeneces between individuals. The same Holy Spirit who is the primary author of scripture wanted us to know something about himself.

-Tim-

A splendid reply, Tim. Beautifully written and brimming with Catholic intelligence.

dj

 

[djeter]

Adding modern or post-modern thinking or analysis to the Bible does not help. After the Fall, we are told that things on earth began to deteriorate. Adam and Eve were made with certain gifts. The ancient writers were not making things up as they went along. The self-created cultural aspects idea ignores the fact that everything in the Bible was inspired by God. The idea that any of this is pre-scientific ignores the idea that God, as God, can do things human beings of today cannot do.

In Matthew 19:12, Jesus tells us that some eunuchs were born that way.

bible.cc/matthew/19-12.htm

I know it’s hard to understand, but death and deformity entered Creation after Original Sin, including the tendency of all of us toward sin. Science, which today, must ignore the supernatural, cannot tell us this. God can.

Peace,
Ed

Thanks, Ed. You know I’ve never understood the sense of outrage that gets provoked by homosexual activists when you mention that highly charged word “disordered” in their midst. It gets taken as the epitome of insults but to me all that it means is that somewhere in the birthing process or in the environment of a fallen Earth you didn’t turn out perfect. It can be said of ALL OF US, in that we all tend towards sin. But then they deny sin so what’s a mother to do, eh?

dj

 

[djeter]

Various people in power and tow in some Episcopal churches (laity, ordinate, theologians) have successfully changed Scripture within their church to suit the sexual needs of noncelibate same sex attracted people.

(I was reading a blog at “Not Another Episcopalian Blog” and a man was writing that his parish was taking a census vote on changes they wanted at their church, including items such as inclusive language, homosexuality, ordaining noncelibate homosexuals, etc.)



From Wikipedia:

"Today the (Episcolpal) Church calls for the full civil equality of gay men and lesbians. Most dioceses ordain openly gay men and women; in some, same-sex unions are celebrated with services of blessing.

In 2009, the Church’s General Convention passed resolutions that allowed for gay and lesbian marriages in states where it is legal.[10]

On the question of abortion, the Church has adopted a nuanced position.

About all these issues, individual members and clergy can and do frequently disagree with the stated position of the Church.

The Episcopal Church ordains women to the priesthood as well as the diaconate and the episcopate. The current Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church is Katharine Jefferts Schori, the first female primate in the Anglican Communion."

CJ has noted elsewhere that Biship Spong’s episcopacy is one of the reasons he joined the Episcopal Church. From web sources: John Shelby Spong was consecrated Bishop Coadjutor of Newark in 1976. He served in that capacity until 1979 when he succeeded Bishop Rath as Diocesan Bishop. His service in the Diocese of Newark as a bishop spanned 24 years, through his retirement in 2000. This is the same diocese that CJ belongs to, I believe.

“It has been said that Bishop Spong “entered the small and little known Diocese of Newark and left it as a bulwark, perhaps radical, of progressive Christian thought and practice.” Some saw him as a hero, some a heretic with distinct camps on both sides of that question. In the 1970s he advocated the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopacy. Later in that decade he became involved in what remains his most controversial stance, the ordination of well-qualified, monogamously-partnered gay or lesbian aspirants. In 1989, Bishop Spong ordained an openly gay man, Robert Williams, an act that resulted in a 1990 vote of disassociation by the House of Bishops.”

So I am importing into CAF here the views of a young man who has been stewed in this environment during some very formative years. He tends to lurk in the company of atheists and others (Libary Thing Forums – almost viciously anti-Catholic – is where I first encountered him) who would support his views, or at least not question them.

I’ve found it curious that Episcopalians, who sometimes use the moniker “Anglican Catholics,” sidle up to Catholics of the Roman sort and introduce themselves as “fellow Catholics, not Roman” and then later launch into stuff like this: “More importantly, we are part of Christ’s Body–“Christ has no hands on Earth but ours” (St. Teresa de Avilla)–and it falls to us, the Church, with the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit, to build God’s Kingdom–a kingdom which is marked primarily by sexual, economic, and political liberation, because Christ IS liberation; that’s the essence of the Sacred Heart.” Things that make you go hmmmm…or at least vote for Obama. Most of Mariology is viewed as utter nonsense, which is sad.

dj

 

[TimothyH]

A splendid reply, Tim. Beautifully written and brimming with Catholic intelligence.

dj

Ha ha ha… I’ll pass the comment along to His Holiness Pope John Paul II who came up with all that. What is amazing is that I was ale to retain enough to write that response in a half way understandale manner - truly proof that God can use even a broken tool.

The fact that you took the time to comment means more to me than you know.

I’m just starting to read a book on the “theology of the body.”

The book is titled “man and woman he created them” by John Paul II, Pauline Books, 2006.

It deals with the subject in the original posts TimothyH has already mentioned a few highlights (I think).

Karol Wyolta wrote “Love and Responsiblity” some time before becoming Pope. Few realize, as I’m sure you do Crumpy, that His Holiness dedicated 129 Wednesday general audiences at the very beginning of his pontificate to the subject of human sexuality.

So is that what you are reading? Is “Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body” the actual text of the Pope’s Wednesday talks? If so, then how do you find it? Easy to follow or is it to be considered an abitious undertaking?.

I am reading Theology of the Body Explained (Revised)" by Christopher West. Christoper West also wrote “Theology of the Body for Beginners”.

The Dominical Sisters of St. Cecilia teach classes on chastity and self respect to the 7th graders here at my parish which are based on JPII’s Theology of the Body. From how my 8th grade daughter talks about sex and boys, it was worth the nine years of tuition just for that. Even at 14, she would see right through the article quoted in the original post.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

You didn’t give us the passage,Contarini, but is this it?

"They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” 8He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.” 10His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 12For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

“Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given." suggests to me that eunuchs or intersexed individuals find themselves in a special position that may have arisen from three circumstances: a disorder at birth, forced mutilation by others and their own choice – which is described as “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”

djeter;

Notice in verse how Jesus deflects the Pharisees question about the Mosaic law. Jesus points back to the way it was “In the beginning”, the way it was with Adam and Eve before sin entered the world. Jesus is in effect saying to the Phariesses that he is not playing their little game, that he has come to redeem mankind and bring us back to the way it was “in the beginning” before sin entered the world.

Is not Jesus the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world? Takes away… removes… gone… goodby… No longer exists…

Jesus is telling the Pharisess that as they focus on coping with, dealing with and trying to control human behavior through the mosaic law, he has come to restore the original grace under which Adam and Eve walked side by side with God in the garden - naked and without shame.

*Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?” He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate." (Matthew 19:3-6)*Jesus had used the “In the beginning” reference a few verses earlier, this time even quoting Genesis 1:27, the very verse twisted by the author of the article quoted in your original post! Jesus himeslf refutes the assertion in the article that “Man and woman he created them” is not meant to be a gender specific reference to how man and woman are naturally ordered toward procreation and spousal union.

Fr. Barron suggests that in the beatitudes we can reach an understanding of the proscriptions (Blessed are the poor, those who grieve, etc.) by considering the alternative: you are blessed or lucky to be poor because it will prevent you from material attachments, you are blessed or lucky to be grieving because you have loved someone deeply – imagine not having loved them at all or being so addicted to “happy feelings” that you are prevented from experiencing the depth and healinig nature of grief.

I’ve often thought to myself of what the “blessed” is for being intersexed or homosexual: Blessed are the homosexuals for they shall be challenged by living lives of chastity? Or not falling into the many sexual traps our culture lays for us?

But homosexuals now seem to have their own set of traps, most created by the activists like CJBanning here who willfully misinterpret scripture to create justifications for living a life preying on others and committing the homosexual acts that Catholic Teaching holds are sinful.

Isn’t it almost as if some deny God’s ability to actually take away sin or are scared that he really won’t or can’t do it? Some denominations actually say that, no? That sin is only covered up, not actually taken away? I do understand how hard it is to trust. As someone who, through the grace of God has found abundant self control after a long battle with sexual sin, I can testify that Jesus really is the Lamb who takes away sins.

Of course there is little one can do when sinful behavior is denied as being sinful.

Definitely an interesting thread!.