Jesus on ASEXUALITY - HOMOSEXUALITY/Gay Marriage, ETC.

[Trost, Theodore]

Herb:

I would gladly engage the Genesis 1 exegesis if I thought it would result in an ennobling exchange. But I doubt that possibility. We did this a month and a half ago. It's like the eternal return! Or the movie Groundhog's Day. (See below.) But I'm willing to have another go-round if you think we are getting somewhere….

Ted Trost



From: "Rev. AWKovacs" <rev...@comcast.net<mailto:rev...@comcast.net>>
Date: April 2, 2012 8:31:24 PM CDT
To: "confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com>" <confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com>>
Cc: "Kovacs, Rev. Albert W." <rev...@comcast.net<mailto:rev...@comcast.net>>
Subject: Re: Jesus on ASEXUALITY - HOMOSEXUALITY
Reply-To: "confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com>" <confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com>>

When people aren't open to listening to the other side, I really don't want
to be a part of their mono-view.

So, please tell Scott, et al, you CC's can have this blog to yourselves ...
I'm outta here! Now!

Whoever is administering this - do me a Delete, thank you!

Al Kovacs



----- Original Message -----
From: "Trost, Theodore" <ttr...@as.ua.edu<mailto:ttr...@as.ua.edu>>
To: <confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com>>
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: Jesus on ASEXUALITY - HOMOSEXUALITY


Enough people have stormed off.

We were just lamenting Scott's absence before you came back to the
conversation. . . .

So the last word is yours.



From: "Rev. AWKovacs" <rev...@comcast.net<mailto:rev...@comcast.net><mailto:rev...@comcast.net>>
Reply-To:
"confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com><mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com>"
<confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com><mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com>>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 18:20:50 -0500
To:
"confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com><mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com>"
<confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com><mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com>>
Cc: "Kovacs, Rev. Albert W." <rev...@comcast.net<mailto:rev...@comcast.net><mailto:rev...@comcast.net>>
Subject: Re: Jesus on ASEXUALITY - HOMOSEXUALITY

Bro. Ted:

The pain goes with the subject, as it has throughout the ages, as
prowler and seducer are everpresent. God is no less pleased than we would
be to discover our child has yielded to temptation and surrendered to sin -
sexual or otherwise.
That some close to me, family or colleagues or members, are convicted is
not by my judgment but by the laws of God manifest in nature and scripture.
Onan is not alone, nor his sin worse than that of many in the generations
since. I am called to teach, not to make or amend or suspend the rule of
God's law. If I fail to do that, the sins fall upon me - and I have enough
of my own already.
Ursinus, addressing the Seventh Commandment concerning adultery, in
clarification of Questions 108 & 109 of the Heidelberg Catechism, his
extends his comments on the latter: "therefore he fforbids all unchaste
actions, gestures, thoughts, desires, and whatever can entice men thereto."
As Calvin told his correspondents that his appeal to the hurch Fathers was
not that they had inordinate authority, but to show that his insights were
not novel and in concord with such wisdom, I share the insights of the
Reformer Ursinus.
Of particular note, he said: "When God singles out adultery as the most
shocking and debasing vice of all the sins whwich are repugnant to chastity,
he at the same time prohibits and condemns all wandering and wanton lusts,
whether they be found in married or unmarried persons, and prohibits all
other sisn and vices contrary to chastity, together with their causes,
occasions, effetcs, entecedents, consequents, &c." ... "All the various
species of lust may be rerferred to these three classes: - The first class
or kind are those which are contrary to nature, and from the devil - such as
are even contrary to our corrupt nature; not only because they corrupt and
spoil it of conformity with God, but also because this our corrupt nature
shrinks from them and abhors them. The lusts of which the apostle Paul
speaks in the first chapted of the Epistle to the Romans, are of this class,
as the confounding of the sexes, also abuses of the female sex."
Of course, those who wish to throw out Paul will also want to ignore
Ursinus and the Law, the latter recognized by Jesus, and choose instead
Smorgasbord Christianity acceptable to their appetite, teachers inclined to
affirm their idolatry.
Rev Al



----- Original Message -----
From: "Trost, Theodore" <ttr...@as.ua.edu<mailto:ttr...@as.ua.edu><mailto:ttr...@as.ua.edu>>
To:
<confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com><mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com>>
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: Jesus on ASEXUALITY - HOMOSEXUALITY


Rev Al:

It is always painful to read your notes on this topic.

I would simply suggest that your matter-of-fact and essentialist argument in
point 4 (really 3) below would convict many of your heterosexual congregants
and, I suspect, a number of your ordained colleagues, of "sexual organ
misuse."

As just one example, I mentioned Onan in an earlier note; he got the death
penalty and now lives forever in eponymy for his version of "sexual organ
misuse" (Genesis 38.8-10).

Your point of view, though, does resonate with Clement of Alexandria: "To
have coitus other than to procreate is to do injury to nature" (The
Instructor of Children 2.10.95.3), circa 190 AD. As Bob Roberts sang: "The
Times they are a-changing—BACK!"

(For more useful quotes in the current political context, see:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html)

Ted Trost

From: "Rev. AWKovacs"
<rev...@comcast.net<mailto:rev...@comcast.net><mailto:rev...@comcast.net><mailto:rev...@comcast.net>>
Reply-To:
"confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com><mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com><mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com>"
<confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com><mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com><mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com>>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 05:24:29 -0500
To:
"confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com><mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com><mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com>"
<confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com><mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com><mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com>>
Cc: "Kovacs, Rev. Albert W."
<rev...@comcast.net<mailto:rev...@comcast.net><mailto:rev...@comcast.net><mailto:rev...@comcast.net>>
Subject: Re: Jesus on ASEXUALITY - HOMOSEXUALITY

No foolin' today, Willis - we've cleared the April Fool's hurdle (as we did
Groundhog Day).

1. That Jesus didn't address the homosexual issue probably was because it
wasn't much of an issue then (if at all) - since the community "knew" by
its moral code that it was an "abomination." It's much like "same sex
marriage," which wasn't a part of the discussion even fifty years ago. Then,
everyone knew marriage was between a man and a woman - period! When a
homosexual couple lived together, it wasn't a matter for conversation -
usually hiddden or one ignored in polite conversation. ... Abortion wasn't
table conversation fifty years ago either, and whoever thought we'd be so
dissolute that we tolerate without a gasp over a million a year just in the
USA? ... Jimmy Carter was/is wrong about a lot of things - he couldn't find
any persecuted churches in Russia either.

2. To have a homosexual nature for me means that the person, because of that
God-given nature, isn't intended to be sexually involved. There are some
things in life that have to be accepted. Societal history is full of the
stories of fine people who have accepted the limitations of their physical
or mental attributes (I suppose we all have may have several, perhaps less
noticeable). Some are born blind, others albino, still others with Downs
Syndrome, and some low IQ, etc. They are all valued, human beings of God's
creation. The God who creates us all differently is not unjust. We all have
relatives who may be "slow," yet whom we love unconditionally, and so with
God who cares for all.

4. What is unnatural is the misuse of the sexual organs, which are
complementary in heterosexual intimacy and in harmony with God's design for
their use. Tradesmen will tell you that it's imperative to use the right
tool for the right job - kitchen knives aren't supposed to be used for screw
drivers, and socket wrenches for hammers. Lesbian and gay intimacy requires
the misuse of the organs, e.g. by "sex toys" or sodomizing. It is readily
manifest and we know it is sinful to misuse them so.
Al

[SCOTT R PAETH]

I emphatically DON'T want to do that, which was part of the point of my exchange with Jim. It's hard to avoid the issue from a public policy perspective, but I am sincere when I say that I find this way of exegeting the passage to be incomprehensible.

It's not that I don't realize that there are other ways of viewing the passage, but to ask me as a Christian to assent to a set of policies because of this particular way of reading the Bible requires me to do something on the basis of something that I literally don't understand. And after more than 20 years at this, and having this same argument with one person and another over and over again, if they haven't made me understand it by now, they probably never will. Maybe there are other avenues of attack that would be more persuasive to me, but the Biblical one is won't work for me, because I simply don't read the Bible that way.

So my apologies to those who were offended by my statement. It was, if nothing else, an expression of my frustration with a line of argumentation that seems to be central to the discussion, but which leaves me utterly cold.

And if I'm angry, it's because I think that the apartheid and segregation analogies are wholly out of bounds, and for that, I won't apologize. Nor for doing theology in media res.

Scott

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Ted,

In that previous dialogue, you never replied to my last post in my
argument that "male and female" in the Gen 1 text does not point to
reproduction but to differentiation. It is a human taxonomy, for in
the text male and female in the human realm corresond to the diversity
in other created realms, particularly the plant and animal.

Jim

[Trost, Theodore]

Dear Jim:

Thanks for your note. I include the earlier discussion below under the heading "previous exchange."

I guess I don't get your point. Or I thought I was saying the same thing you were. As I parse my sentence, its primary assertion is:

1) "The essential argument about 'male and female he created them' … arises in the context of radical segregation."

We might call it binary opposition. Day is distinguished from night; light is distinguished from dark; sea is separated from sky. This is the P account. Subsequent kosher laws will arise in that tradition based upon these differentiations such that amphibolic or ambiguous creatures will be deemed unclean (shrimp; pigs). These categories extend outward from there distinguishing Jew from Gentile; slave from free; male from female. By Genesis 3, the "natural" relation pertaining between male and female is one of enmity and male domination.

2) "The essential argument about 'male and female he created them' — also for the explicit purpose of procreation, the burden of which fell upon the woman who was also responsible for unfruitfulness in that revered culture … "

The secondary point is simply that God's charge to the newly-differentiated couple is to reproduce like the other living creatures of every kind. My use of dashes may be confusing, but I thought I was saying this charge to reproduce arises in the over-arching context of differentiation. Is there something to disagree about here? Do you object to my phrase "explicit purpose" which you subsequently change to "express purpose"?

In fact, I would be critical of those who argue the position that reproduction is the determinative point of the Genesis 1 story. But since you are not arguing that anyhow, as I interpret your note, why pursue that tangent?

Ted

From: "link...@aol.com<mailto:link...@aol.com>" <link...@aol.com<mailto:link...@aol.com>>
Reply-To: "confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com>" <confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com>>

To: Confessing Christ Open Forum <confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: Jesus on ASEXUALITY - HOMOSEXUALITY/Gay Marriage, ETC.

Dear Ted,

In that previous dialogue, you never replied to my last post in my
argument that "male and female" in the Gen 1 text does not point to
reproduction but to differentiation. It is a human taxonomy, for in
the text male and female in the human realm corresond to the diversity
in other created realms, particularly the plant and animal.

Jim

On May 13, 11:40 pm, "Trost, Theodore" <ttr...@as.ua.edu<mailto:ttr...@as.ua.edu>> wrote:
Herb:

I would gladly engage the Genesis 1 exegesis if I thought it would result in an ennobling exchange. But I doubt that possibility. We did this a month and a half ago. It's like the eternal return! Or the movie Groundhog's Day. (See below.) But I'm willing to have another go-round if you think we are getting somewhere….

Ted Trost

_____________ PREVIOUS EXCHANGE____________

From: "link...@aol.com<mailto:link...@aol.com>" <link...@aol.com<mailto:link...@aol.com>>
Reply-To: "confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com>" <confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com>>

Date: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 11:00 AM
To: Confessing Christ Open Forum <confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: America Love it or leave it --thus sayeth the preacher

Actually, no "express purpose" is stated for God creating humanity
male and female in the first creation story, only a note with regard
to this aspect of human nature deriving from God's express desire to
make humanity according to God's own image and likeness. As with the
vegetation, and the creatures of the sea and sky, of whom there is no
mention of being male and female, God blesses that which he creates in
order that these his creatures may procreate, himself bearing the
primary burden for this. "Male and female" humanity corresponds in the
narrative to the diversity within vegetative, sea, sky and land animal
life: human diversity in fellowship consists in this: humanity is male
and female.

Jim

On Mar 21, 10:54 am, "Trost, Theodore" <ttr...@as.ua.edu<mailto:ttr...@as.ua.edu>> wrote:
Eric:

Yes, first of all: many thanks for George's comment.

The heading of this conversation says something about the Old Adam that I, for one, believe the gospels, Acts, and some of the epistles, endeavor to overcome.

The essential argument about "male and female he created them" — also for the explicit purpose of procreation, the burden of which fell upon the woman who was also responsible for unfruitfulness in that revered culture — arises in the context of radical segregation: day is distinguished from night, darkness from light, etc. Birds appropriately swim in the air to match the way fish fly in the water. That which does not conform to category is deemed impure: pigs, shellfish. These categories are embedded so deeply in the ensuing culture that Peter, for one, cannot really move beyond them — at least, "if" Paul is to be believed. Acts is more generous to Peter, but even there his stuck-in-the-pastness is confirmed by James, the leader of the Jerusalem Church, who refers to the defender of the uncircumcised with his "old" name, "Simeon" (Acts 15.14); and that's the last word about "Peter." He disappears ignominiously from the narrative and it's all Paul from then on.

There is a vast amount written about Paul's Romans 1 statements. One could simply disagree with Paul about same-sex relations. To my reading, Paul is concerned about "their" inability to "acknowledge" God in the midst of all-consuming passion. This is the same kind of passion that turns to idols. It's a kind of greed. Or maybe it's the "envy" the poor allegedly extend toward the success of the well-to-do. I don't think Paul is talking about the kind of human relationship that calls out for state and church recognition in our day. But these things have been said here many times and the debate goes on.

I do agree that if one wants to be entirely consistent, one should never commit the sin of Onanism. Even the rhythm method is a compromise foisted upon already-large families as an accommodation, "because of your hardness of heart," as it were. I am glad to see this matter being raised in the current political debate because it elevates to the point of absurdity the stance of those who make hurtful claims in the name of "authentic" Christianity.

Ted Trost

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Ted,

I was objecting to your "also for the explicit purpose of creation,"
altough I am sorry that I did not notice your "also." I here don't see
any explicit purpose for their differentiation (or any of the
differentiation) in Gen. 1, other that in their particular form of
created differentiation they are the likeness of God, according to
God's image.

I would also add that in the text "divide" or "segregation" or "binary
opposition" characterizes only light and darkness, (4 ) the waters and
the waters, (6) day and night. (14,18). By virtue of these
segregations God creates the different realms with their member
creatures in their different differentiations, none of which is
divided or segregated from the other. Notice there is no "clean" and
"unclean."

And, by the way,I would disagree that in the text the male female
relation becomes "enmity" by "nature."

Jim

On May 14, 11:18 am, "Trost, Theodore" <ttr...@as.ua.edu> wrote:
> Dear Jim:
>
> Thanks for your note.  I include the earlier discussion below under the heading "previous exchange."
>
> I guess I don't get your point.  Or I thought I was saying the same thing you were.  As I parse my sentence, its primary assertion is:
>
> 1)  "The essential argument about 'male and female he created them' …  arises in the context of radical segregation."
>
> We might call it binary opposition.  Day is distinguished from night; light is distinguished from dark; sea is separated from sky.  This is the P account.  Subsequent kosher laws will arise in that tradition based upon these differentiations such that amphibolic or ambiguous creatures will be deemed unclean (shrimp; pigs).  These categories extend outward from there distinguishing Jew from Gentile; slave from free; male from female.  By Genesis 3, the "natural" relation pertaining between male and female is one of enmity and male domination.
>
> 2)  "The essential argument about 'male and female he created them' — also for the explicit purpose of procreation, the burden of which fell upon the woman who was also responsible for unfruitfulness in that revered culture … "
>
> The secondary point is simply that God's charge to the newly-differentiated couple is to reproduce like the other living creatures of every kind.  My use of dashes may be confusing, but I thought I was saying this charge to reproduce arises in the over-arching context of differentiation.  Is there something to disagree about here?  Do you object to my phrase "explicit purpose" which you subsequently change to "express purpose"?
>
> In fact, I would be critical of those who argue the position that reproduction is the determinative point of the Genesis 1 story.  But since you are not arguing that anyhow, as I interpret your note, why pursue that tangent?
>
> Ted
>

> From: "linkc...@aol.com<mailto:linkc...@aol.com>" <linkc...@aol.com<mailto:linkc...@aol.com>>
> Reply-To: "confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessing-christ@googlegroups.c­om>" <confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessing-christ@googlegroups.c­om>>

> To: Confessing Christ Open Forum <confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessing-christ@googlegroups.c­om>>
> Subject: Re: Jesus on ASEXUALITY - HOMOSEXUALITY/Gay Marriage, ETC.
>
> Dear Ted,
>
> In that previous dialogue, you never replied to my last post in my
> argument that "male and female" in the Gen 1 text does not point to
> reproduction but to differentiation. It is a human taxonomy, for in
> the text male and female in the human realm corresond to the diversity
> in other created realms, particularly the plant and animal.
>
> Jim
>
> On May 13, 11:40 pm, "Trost, Theodore" <ttr...@as.ua.edu<mailto:ttr...@as.ua.edu>> wrote:
> Herb:
>
> I would gladly engage the Genesis 1 exegesis if I thought it would result in an ennobling exchange.  But I doubt that possibility.  We did this a month and a half ago.  It's like the eternal return!  Or the movie Groundhog's Day.  (See below.)  But I'm willing to have another go-round if you think we are getting somewhere….
>
> Ted Trost
>
> _____________ PREVIOUS EXCHANGE____________
>

> From: "linkc...@aol.com<mailto:linkc...@aol.com>" <linkc...@aol.com<mailto:linkc...@aol.com>>
> Reply-To: "confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessing-christ@googlegroups.c­om>" <confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessing-christ@googlegroups.c­om>>

[Trost, Theodore]

Jim:

RESPONSES IN CAPS. . . .

I was objecting to your "also for the explicit purpose of creation,"
altough I am sorry that I did not notice your "also." I here don't see
any explicit purpose for their differentiation (or any of the
differentiation) in Gen. 1, other that in their particular form of
created differentiation they are the likeness of God, according to
God's image.

I DIDN'T USE THE WORD EXPLICIT WITH REFERENCE TO DIFFERENTIATION; I USED IT WITH REFERENCE TO GOD'S FIRST WORDS TO THE HUMAN COUPLE.

I would also add that in the text "divide" or "segregation" or "binary
opposition" characterizes only light and darkness, (4 ) the waters and
the waters, (6) day and night. (14,18). By virtue of these
segregations God creates the different realms with their member
creatures in their different differentiations, none of which is
divided or segregated from the other. Notice there is no "clean" and
"unclean."

I READ THIS TEXT IN THE CONTEXT OF SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS IN "P" AND THROUGHOUT THE PENTATEUCH — WHERE DIFFERENTIATION IN THE MANNER INAUGURATED BY GOD IN THE OPENING CHAPTER OF GENESIS BECOMES THE PATTERN FOR DIFFERENTIATIONS ENCODED IN THE LAW.

BY THE WAY, I WOULD FOLLOW JANE INTO A READING OF THE NT WHERE THESE KINDS OF DISTINCTIONS ARE NULLIFIED. THUS GALATIANS 3 OR JOHN 17. JESUS' REFERENCE TO "WHAT GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER" IN MARK 10 ARISES IN OPPOSITION TO THE PHARISEES' CONCERN FOR SEPARATION, SPECIFICALLY DIVORCE. "ONE FLESH" IS GOD'S INTENTION FOR ALL OF HUMANITY. I DON'T READ THIS AS A CRUDE DEPICTION OF HETEROSEXUAL INTIMACY, BUT AS A METAPHOR FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE ONENESS THAT PERTAINS BETWEEN THE FATHER AND THE SON.

And, by the way,I would disagree that in the text the male female
relation becomes "enmity" by "nature."

ENMITY IS A WORD I TOOK FROM THE SNAKE. IT MAY NOT DESCRIBE APPROPRIATELY GOD'S POST-FALL DESIGN FOR WOMAN'S PAINFUL CHILDBIRTH OR HER INABILITY TO AVERT THIS PAIN ON ACCOUNT OF A (NATURAL?) DESIRE FOR HER HUSBAND — THE CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH IS MORE PAIN AND THE DANGER OF DEATH IN THE CONTEXT OF PATRIARCHAL RULE. JESUS OFFERS A MORE ABUNDANT LIFE THAN THIS.

Ted

On May 14, 11:18 am, "Trost, Theodore" <ttr...@as.ua.edu<mailto:ttr...@as.ua.edu>> wrote:
Dear Jim:

Thanks for your note. I include the earlier discussion below under the heading "previous exchange."

I guess I don't get your point. Or I thought I was saying the same thing you were. As I parse my sentence, its primary assertion is:

1) "The essential argument about 'male and female he created them' … arises in the context of radical segregation."

We might call it binary opposition. Day is distinguished from night; light is distinguished from dark; sea is separated from sky. This is the P account. Subsequent kosher laws will arise in that tradition based upon these differentiations such that amphibolic or ambiguous creatures will be deemed unclean (shrimp; pigs). These categories extend outward from there distinguishing Jew from Gentile; slave from free; male from female. By Genesis 3, the "natural" relation pertaining between male and female is one of enmity and male domination.

2) "The essential argument about 'male and female he created them' — also for the explicit purpose of procreation, the burden of which fell upon the woman who was also responsible for unfruitfulness in that revered culture … "

The secondary point is simply that God's charge to the newly-differentiated couple is to reproduce like the other living creatures of every kind. My use of dashes may be confusing, but I thought I was saying this charge to reproduce arises in the over-arching context of differentiation. Is there something to disagree about here? Do you object to my phrase "explicit purpose" which you subsequently change to "express purpose"?

In fact, I would be critical of those who argue the position that reproduction is the determinative point of the Genesis 1 story. But since you are not arguing that anyhow, as I interpret your note, why pursue that tangent?

Ted

From: "linkc...@aol.com<mailto:linkc...@aol.com><mailto:linkc...@aol.com>" <linkc...@aol.com<mailto:linkc...@aol.com><mailto:linkc...@aol.com>>
Reply-To: "confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com><mailto:confessing-christ@googlegroups.c­om>" <confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com><mailto:confessing-christ@googlegroups.c­om>>
To: Confessing Christ Open Forum <confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com><mailto:confessing-christ@googlegroups.c­om>>
Subject: Re: Jesus on ASEXUALITY - HOMOSEXUALITY/Gay Marriage, ETC.

Dear Ted,

In that previous dialogue, you never replied to my last post in my
argument that "male and female" in the Gen 1 text does not point to
reproduction but to differentiation. It is a human taxonomy, for in
the text male and female in the human realm corresond to the diversity
in other created realms, particularly the plant and animal.

Jim

On May 13, 11:40 pm, "Trost, Theodore" <ttr...@as.ua.edu<mailto:ttr...@as.ua.edu><mailto:ttr...@as.ua.edu>> wrote:
Herb:

I would gladly engage the Genesis 1 exegesis if I thought it would result in an ennobling exchange. But I doubt that possibility. We did this a month and a half ago. It's like the eternal return! Or the movie Groundhog's Day. (See below.) But I'm willing to have another go-round if you think we are getting somewhere….

Ted Trost

_____________ PREVIOUS EXCHANGE____________

From: "linkc...@aol.com<mailto:linkc...@aol.com><mailto:linkc...@aol.com>" <linkc...@aol.com<mailto:linkc...@aol.com><mailto:linkc...@aol.com>>
Reply-To: "confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com><mailto:confessing-christ@googlegroups.c­om>" <confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com><mailto:confessing-christ@googlegroups.c­om>>
Date: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 11:00 AM
To: Confessing Christ Open Forum <confessi...@googlegroups.com<mailto:confessi...@googlegroups.com><mailto:confessing-christ@googlegroups.c­om>>
Subject: Re: America Love it or leave it --thus sayeth the preacher

Actually, no "express purpose" is stated for God creating humanity
male and female in the first creation story, only a note with regard
to this aspect of human nature deriving from God's express desire to
make humanity according to God's own image and likeness. As with the
vegetation, and the creatures of the sea and sky, of whom there is no
mention of being male and female, God blesses that which he creates in
order that these his creatures may procreate, himself bearing the
primary burden for this. "Male and female" humanity corresponds in the
narrative to the diversity within vegetative, sea, sky and land animal
life: human diversity in fellowship consists in this: humanity is male
and female.

Jim

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Ted,

As for your first point, I understant that you mean "explicit" to
refer to God's pronounced blessing, and the result thereof, but there
is no indication here that he created them male and female "also for
the explicit purpose of procreation." True, the blessing follows the
indication of "male and female he created them," but the immediate
"purpose" thereof is indicated in "Let us make humanity in our image."
If there were "also" the other purpose you propose, we might find
something explicitly stated, like the stated purpose of the
"dome" (6-7) and the "lights" (14-18) or for the diffentiated
vegetation (29-30). I would agree with you, though, that procreation
is part of the purpose, but male and female differention, having an
explicit purpose (differentiation) has also this added purpose
(reproduction), toward the purpose of covenant history, beginning in
God's rest.

As to your second point, all the more remarkable that there is so
little segregation "in the beginning."

As to your second point within your second point, I see nothing wrong
with reading it as "a crude depiction of heterosexual intimacy." My
Missouri Synod grandmother, may she rest in peace, once told me a joke
based on Gen 2:

Three sisters, Mary Esther, Mary Martha, and Mary Margaret died and
appeared before the gates of heaven, where St. Peter was stationed.
St. Peter said, "I have a test question for each of you, which you
must answer correctly before you may enter. He asked Mary Esther, the
oldest, "How do you spell God?" "G, O, D!" she answered, and a bell
rang, and the gates swung open wide for her. Then he asked Mary
Martha, the second oldest, "How do you spell Jesus?" "J, E,S,U,S!" she
answered, and a bell rang, and the gates swung upon wide. Finallly, he
asked Mary Margaret, the youngest, "What was the first thing Eve said
when she saw Adam?" "Wow, that's a hard one!" Mary Margaret exclaimed.
And a bell rang, and the gates swung open wide for her.

And here we are, in our "bag of worms" (Luther) in which the Son of
God was pleased to pitch his tent. (Gen 3:21)

As to your last point: abudunantant life within this enmity, as
victory over it.

God bless you!

Jim