With regards to those email responses to your NYT piece: “Oh dear!” 🫣
Reminds me of the Retired Boomer-response to COVID: “Everyone just stay in for a bit and it will go away!” An option only feasible for the retired upper middle class.
It's an interesting article. Certainly viewing Genesis 3:16-19 as prescriptive and not descriptive is very interesting, but upon pulling out my bible the lord God seems to be stating what he will do, not that the world is now inherently a certain way separate from God's will.
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be for thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
I feel as though this would invalidate viewing God as anything other than an explanation for the state of the world. It makes God not an agent, which I suppose makes sense for a modern work, but personally doesn't make much sense in a more traditional religious view.
Although, I do think more troubling for the piece is that it seems to believe that The Fall is what cause humans to be separate from the rest of creation, but God actually does this himself in Genesis 1:26, which itself precedes the creation of "the living creature." God himself gives man dominion over the garden in 2:15-16 "And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:" before then forbidding him to eat from the tree of good and evil.
And then later in 2:19-20 God brings all the animals to Adam that he might name them. This certainly, to me, sounds as though Adam and all of humanity is separate from the rest of creation, and has rights the rest of creation does not enjoy. I don't think this would extend to dominance, moreso he is allowed to use it as he sees fit so long as he also cares for it.
I think this actually aligns very well with a John Muir like view of nature, that we have responsibilities to it. But it certainly also aligns with "anthropocentrism" where man is the pinnacle of creation and quite separate from the rest of it.
There are some very good points in the article, and I'd certainly agree Genesis 3 seems to be indicating a move from the paleolithic to the neolithic, and the fruit definitely is speaking to self awareness and perhaps even consciousness, but the author is still theologically wrong about quite a few points
I watched the debate and its not surprising that the feminist who believes boys and girls are interchangeable is the only women who is (happily!) childless.
Any parent would know immediately that boys and girls are different from birth. A big reason why the "sameness" view has flourished so much is because fewer and fewer people are having children. Raising and loving your children will quickly dispel you of this ridiculous myth.
With regards to those email responses to your NYT piece: “Oh dear!” 🫣
Reminds me of the Retired Boomer-response to COVID: “Everyone just stay in for a bit and it will go away!” An option only feasible for the retired upper middle class.
Thank you for referring us to that Earth & Altar article! Actually, are you potentially able to interview the author?
Fair point. Though I think the overall conclusion of the article is pointing in the right direction
It's an interesting article. Certainly viewing Genesis 3:16-19 as prescriptive and not descriptive is very interesting, but upon pulling out my bible the lord God seems to be stating what he will do, not that the world is now inherently a certain way separate from God's will.
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be for thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
I feel as though this would invalidate viewing God as anything other than an explanation for the state of the world. It makes God not an agent, which I suppose makes sense for a modern work, but personally doesn't make much sense in a more traditional religious view.
Although, I do think more troubling for the piece is that it seems to believe that The Fall is what cause humans to be separate from the rest of creation, but God actually does this himself in Genesis 1:26, which itself precedes the creation of "the living creature." God himself gives man dominion over the garden in 2:15-16 "And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:" before then forbidding him to eat from the tree of good and evil.
And then later in 2:19-20 God brings all the animals to Adam that he might name them. This certainly, to me, sounds as though Adam and all of humanity is separate from the rest of creation, and has rights the rest of creation does not enjoy. I don't think this would extend to dominance, moreso he is allowed to use it as he sees fit so long as he also cares for it.
I think this actually aligns very well with a John Muir like view of nature, that we have responsibilities to it. But it certainly also aligns with "anthropocentrism" where man is the pinnacle of creation and quite separate from the rest of it.
There are some very good points in the article, and I'd certainly agree Genesis 3 seems to be indicating a move from the paleolithic to the neolithic, and the fruit definitely is speaking to self awareness and perhaps even consciousness, but the author is still theologically wrong about quite a few points
I watched the debate and its not surprising that the feminist who believes boys and girls are interchangeable is the only women who is (happily!) childless.
Any parent would know immediately that boys and girls are different from birth. A big reason why the "sameness" view has flourished so much is because fewer and fewer people are having children. Raising and loving your children will quickly dispel you of this ridiculous myth.
Louise - Just a minor spelling correction on the e-mail incase you haven't noticed it.
(I think you mean 'Mary Harrington - great friend', not 'grate frend'.)
It was a Molesworth joke 😉 a bit niche, admittedly
Alright. You too are such a blessing! Just finished reading your recommendations.
I'm praying and watching your progress into Christianity with immense interest for a year now.