V
Valtiel
Guest
Yes I’m in a current debate with one right now and he claims that in genesis God never intended for woman to be created, that the text clearly shows that God made woman as an after thought. How do I respond to this?
- Status
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
ASk him which creation story he is referring to. Additionally, in the second creation narrative, God creates woman to be a companion for man. If God intended men to be homosexual, He would have created Steve for Adam, not Eve. This is just another example of creative interpretation.
V
Valtiel
Guest
He’s seems to be refering to that very first account in genesis, where he states adam was created first and only after he couldn’t find a helper did God think to create woman. He also claim as to some excuse that God created some men to be eunachs(sp), That enuchs refered in some point in time to homosexuals, saying this is an excuse for some to be gay…
J
jimmy
Guest
Tell him that his arguement has no base for defending homosexuality. There was only one Adam, so there could be no one for him to have a homosexual relationship with. God then created Eve to be Adams companion. There is still only one Adam, and now there is also one Eve.
So it seems that God is making the statement that one man for one woman is the way he wants it.
J
jimmy
Guest
A Eunuch is someone that castrates himself. Look at the council of Nicea to see that the early Church believed this.
B
Benadam
Guest
I would tell him that if what he says is true there is not supposed to be gender at all nor sexuality. Adam in his solitude had no way to define gender. In effect Adam was genderless untill God gave him a Woman. In her femininity Adam discovers his masculinity. I can imagine Adam looking down " so, I was wondering if there was more to that than urinating" No female no male.
So, if God didn’t intend to create femininity then God din’t intend to reveal gender at all to man.
So, if God didn’t intend to create femininity then God din’t intend to reveal gender at all to man.
J
JCPhoenix
Guest
OK, first of all, point out that he is a chauvenist and he is not the first one to “invent” this idea. This is an oldie.
Secondly, tell him we’ll give him his proverbial rib back just to watch him choke on it–although he’s doing just fine on his own on that matter.
Thirdly…who is he to decide what God did or did not intend to do? His theology is completely fictional and comes from his own pride, not any basis in any solid theology/philosophy. He has no basis to defend his opinion or lifestyle and he is graspign at straws.
Regarding eunichs…he needs to study history. I don’t know the time period (Rennaissance, maybe?), boys with great voices were castrated so as to become actors/opera singers. THe removal of their testes ensured their male charistics would not develop, preserving their high voices. Slaves were castrated and used for various duties, their “weapons” thus removed making them more “harmless” to the women they served. (I think this was more to “defend” the “honor” of the women).
I don’t know all the details of this and I can’t remember with any reliability those historical facts I did learn or where. I hope some historian comes along to give a great answer to this.
As far a self-castration—well, this points to a disordered thought process in any society of the past. It is not a defense of homosexuality, but an indicator of mental illness. If he is using this as a defense he has already condemned his position.
Secondly, tell him we’ll give him his proverbial rib back just to watch him choke on it–although he’s doing just fine on his own on that matter.
Thirdly…who is he to decide what God did or did not intend to do? His theology is completely fictional and comes from his own pride, not any basis in any solid theology/philosophy. He has no basis to defend his opinion or lifestyle and he is graspign at straws.
Regarding eunichs…he needs to study history. I don’t know the time period (Rennaissance, maybe?), boys with great voices were castrated so as to become actors/opera singers. THe removal of their testes ensured their male charistics would not develop, preserving their high voices. Slaves were castrated and used for various duties, their “weapons” thus removed making them more “harmless” to the women they served. (I think this was more to “defend” the “honor” of the women).
I don’t know all the details of this and I can’t remember with any reliability those historical facts I did learn or where. I hope some historian comes along to give a great answer to this.
As far a self-castration—well, this points to a disordered thought process in any society of the past. It is not a defense of homosexuality, but an indicator of mental illness. If he is using this as a defense he has already condemned his position.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
then God gave the command to go forth and multiply, precisely how would this have been accomplished if only men were created?
your friend is a victim of the kind of pseudo-theology promulgated in rags like the National Catholic Reporter and self-worship sessions like the Jesus Seminar that attempt to drop everything from the Bible that warns against homosexual practice, and rewrite and wilfully misinterpret what is left. An example is claiming the sin of those who wanted to sodomize the guests of Lot were guilty of a breach of hospitality.
Also, it is the height of arrogance for any human to claim to know what God intended, much less make that claim excuse any sinful action he wishes to justify.
B
BibleReader
Guest
The creation account is typological. Man in that story is Christ. Woman created from the rib is mankind created so that in some ways he was like Christ. ("=," not from the head [superior], not from the feet [inferior]). Because salvation (water) purchased by Christ’s blood was an essential ingredient, in John’s gospel we see blood and water following Eve out of the side of the “New Testament Adam,” Christ.
So, woman was not a mere afterthought. Woman in the start was chosen as God’s symbol for mankind-in-need-of-salvation.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
God does not have after-thoughts, all His actions and thoughts are present, there never was a time before His entire plan for all creation was not fully operational and intentional.
M
MaggieOH
Guest
This is the problem when people take the Genesis account to be too literal. It is like trying to read God’s mind all those thousands of years ago in light of someone’s perverse behaviour.
No. The purpose of the Genesis Creation account is to give us the Truth, that is God’s Truth. It is not a literal account of the creation of the world because it is only a bare bones outline of the events. The original author, inspired by God had a set purpose in that account. It is written, not to say that woman was an after thought but that woman and man complement each other and that Eve, not Steve was created for Adam.
BTW, wait until you get to the other parts of the Scripture and you get a rather weird interpretation of what is being said in Corinthians where it is actually spelled out that homosexual behaviour is an abomination before God.
MaggieOH
C
Cherub
Guest
I’d just have to laugh. I mean, it’s not even a valid idea. It is too absurd to even suggest!
C
cyprian
Guest
How about Leviticus 18:22, for starters.
L
Lisa_N
Guest
No kidding. Now ask your friend how he relies on a twisted interpretation of Genesis to support homosexuality yet ignores the very LITERAL words that say repeatedly that homosexual sex is a very grave sin and an abomination before God. Imagine, God grants to us the power of creation of human life. We ‘diss’ God by using the power for nothing more than self gratification in an unnatural act. It sounds pretty insulting to me.
But hey it’s better than the homosexual apologist who justified his behavior by pointing out some zoo has a pair of male penguins who hang out together. They are SO desperate to prove that their behavior is natural they think a couple of bird brains will help the cause.
Lisa N
T
thomist
Guest
Using the Bible with a nitwit like you described is ineffective. A better way is to simply refer to the natural revelation of God’s intention in nature- humans are created both male and female. If the nitwit’s argument was correct then it means God goofed, and therefore isn’t God. It would also mean that no humans would now exist - since we require (from the nature of our very being!) male AND female for continuation of our species. Challenge him / her to find (or write!) his / her own “scripture” and not to bigotedly use ours.
A
amontoya
Guest
In my wedding, my minister pointed out in the creation story that God brought all of the creatures before Adam to purposefully show him that nothing on the earth would be suitable for him as a companion. Only after Adam had seen and named all of the other creatures and realized he was alone, did God gave him Eve. Doing it in this way makes us understand that the bond between a man and a woman is so incredibly special, because the only suitable partner on earth for Man is Woman.
- Status