Inspired by comments on Rachel Held Evans’ blog.
An argument I saw twice for the man over woman hierarchy (complimentarianism) was that Adam was created first and Eve second. We’ll leave it here, because quite frankly to address the whole debate will be doing more of the same, over and over again.
Other comments pointed out that in Genesis 1 the animals were created before Adam, thus following the “order” logic, the animals must have dominion over Adam.
And still another comment points out that in the so-called 2nd creation account of Genesis 2, the animals were created after Adam. Therefore, even the Bible isn’t consistent on the order, so how could the order have anything to say about relative hierarchies in creation.
Right.
While claiming that there is a second creation account in Genesis may be controversial in some Christian circles, the rest of the logic is pretty simple. And I don’t believe that those who originally made the argument for complimentarianism from the order of creation are simpletons.
But something happens when readers with faith commitments open the Bible. They stop reading, in fact. The words and the logic of the concepts vanish before their eyes. Whatever theology they bring to the text points to this and that concept and phrase, and reinforces its own logic. Even reading Genesis 1 from an egalitarian perspective falls into the same trap. Nothing in the text forces the reader to produce an understanding of all women’s relationship to all men for all time. That’s a choice based on faith not on the text.
Neither interpretation considers why such a text was produced in the first place. Why tell the same story in two different ways, or why tell two different stories? This is precisely what I’ve been pushing. Existence precedes theology (please comment if you think this is not true). So why is theology always first when many Christians open their Bibles?
Only one quibble: you say “That’s a choice based on faith”—and I don’t think it really is, not if we mean faith in God, anyways. It’s a choice based on taught preconceptions. Which means faith in the church. Which means believing the church itself, which is always a theological failing.
But if existence precedes theology, it is also true that your existence at all moments contains mediating preconceptions that you trust because you’ve been taught them. How do you propose to fight this, existentially?
A choice based on faith… ehh, semantics. Based on faith claims or commitments is more accurate. Most people have at least latent commitments about how they read the Bible.
As far as existence must mediate at all times preconceptions: in a word, anthropology. I will deal with this more later. But even in the moment where we are negotiating our preconceptions, existence is still prior. We mediate based upon how our conceptions match our experience. We don’t always do it well, but that is how we do it, it seems.
One of the major eye-opening experiences I had in my understanding of this topic had to do with Genesis as well. No where is it stated in the text that the serpent in Genesis 3 is Satan. That is something we have to introduce ourselves. Good luck trying to claim that we shouldn’t take the serpent as Satan next time that one comes up though. Nevertheless, this is different than using Genesis 1 and 2 to justify partriarchy. There is clear textual support for the claim that the serpent is at the very least related to the trickster idea of Satan. This poses the question, is the connection between Genesis 1 and justifcations of patriarchy based on an interpretation that the text is in some way a directive that women submit to men, or is it no more than a theological example of an order that is taken as natural, or universal, the way that medieval theologians would claim that clovers are evidence of the triune nature of God?
That is a hokey question, I realize. I won’t pretend that it should be taken too seriously. The point I am getting at is nothing more than this: it is necessary to have a clear idea of how it is you are using scripture to support a case. And, your use of scripture should match the case you make. If you think that Genesis 1 is a directive, it is necessary to find texual evidence of this. If it is nothing more than an illustration of a theological point, you need to justify your theology. Otherwise you are begging the question. And if there is no textual evidence of a directive, or if your theology is completely dependent on that which is supposed to simply demonstrate it (see all claims that the Bible is infallible because it says it is), then you are paying it no respect by insisting scripture means something that just isn’t there.
Pingback: Contents of Mutuality 2012 | Rudimentary Bible
I admit that the Bible is more often a stumbling block for my beliefs than I’d like. A truly forgiving God contradicted in the next day’s reading. Argh! Why won’t God submit to my conception?
Could Big Bang Theory exist in the very beginning to create something out of nothing?
Indeed nobody has ever existed prior to the creation of this universe. Big Bang Theory is just a wild imagination from scientists that this universe could be created through it since nobody has eye-witness about its existence for the creation of this universe.
As Big Bang Theory mentions that this universe was used to be very small and very dense in the beginning, the mass and/or energy and/or protons and/or other particles that are within this tiny universe to trigger off Big Bang Theory would have limited volume. As the mass from universe in the beginning that would work under the Big Bang theory would slowly release the mass from it, it would turn up to be big universe and not so dense. No matter how the mass or energy or particles(,i.e. protons and etc.), that would be released from this tiny universe under the Big Bang Theory, there would come to a point of time in which nothing would be left in it as a result of the entire releasing of mass to its surrounding. Thus, it would come to a time that the universe would no more keep on expanding since the universe that works on Big Bang Theory has released all its mass to its surrounding. Unless the thing or the small universe that would trigger off Big Bang Theory in the very beginning would create more mass of space by itself so as to replenish the mass that has been released from it, there would be no way for Big Bang Theory to create mass of space unceasingly to cause the unceasing expansion of universe especially the law of conservation of mass and energy in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass, states that the mass and energy could not be created. How could Big Bang Theory support that this universe would keep on expanding as if that the mass of space could keep on producing without ceasing?
As mass could never be created by itself, the total mass of matter and/or energy and/or particles and/or protons in the thing or universe in the beginning (that would generate Big Bang Theory) would have the same mass as all the mass of all stars and planets among all the galaxies in this current and sophisticated universe since the mass could never be created as stated in the law of conservation of mass and energy. How could this little universe (that would have existed in the very beginning with the capability to trigger off Big Bang Theory) have the same amount of mass and these include all the stars and planets that are among all the galaxies in this modern world? When Big Bang theory mentions that the universe could be very dense, could the density of the rocks among all the planets and stars in this entire universe be lower than the very high density of the space or whatever in the universe that would generate Big Bang Theory? As there are more than billions of planets and stars in this current universe and the density of rocks in each planet is higher than anything else especially the very high density of space in the universe that would create Big Bang Theory in the beginning, how could the density of the space in the universe that would generate Big Bang Theory be greater than the rocks of all the planets and stars in this universe and yet the size of that universe would yet be very small then? If you would add up all the mass of planets and stars of different galaxies in this world, it would form a gigantic ball and the outlook would be many times bigger than our galaxy and it would not be a very tiny universe as mentioned in Big Bang Theory. To generate the same amount of mass of all the stars and planets for different galaxies in this modern universe, the universe that would generate Big Bang Theory in the beginning must have the same mass and it should be in gigantic size as many times as bigger than our galaxy especially the weight of a planet is many times as heavy as the very high density of space. As the universe that would generate all the stars and planets for different galaxies in the beginning should be in gigantic size, how could Big Bang Theory supports that that universe would be small and very dense especially the law of conversation of energy and mass states that mass and energy could not be created?
Is it true that the thing that would have existed in the very beginning for the generation of Big Bang Theory could be very dense in nature? This theory seems weird in the sense that how the small little thing or so-called, universe, could be very dense. If you take a balloon to blow air on it and try to suppress its expansion so as to make the air in it to be very dense, it would explode. Thus, if the thing or the so-called, very small universe, that would have generated Big Bang Theory would turn up to be very dense, that thing or universe would explode itself since it would be under hard pressure. If you take a box and blow air in it so as to make it dense, it would reach a stage that no air could enter into the box when the air in the box has been filled up. How could it be possible for the thing or the universe that would have existed in the very beginning to be very dense so as to generate Big Bang Theory since explosion would occur within a limited space? What would have caused the thing or the so-called, universe, to be very dense in the first place?
It is irrational to assume that the thing that would exist in the very beginning would release all its masses continuously non-stop until eternity for the fact that mass and energy could never be created under the law of conservation of mass and energy. As mass and energy could not be created by itself, how could the Big Bang Theory produce mass of space continuously as the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass could never be created by itself? As mass and energy could not be created by itself in the thing that would have existed since the beginning, it would cease to increase in its mass when all the elements that would be within the Big Bang Theory have run out till nothing is left inside. Yet in reality what scientists have mentioned about Big Bang Theory is the forever increasing of mass of space in this universe. The forever increasing in the space expanding gives the implication that the assumption that the thing that would have been initiated with Big Bang Theory has been proven to be wrong since how could mass or energy be created itself when the law of conservation of mass and energy mentions that mass and energy cannot be created in the first place?
A simple conclusion has to be made here. How could the Big Bang Theory generate mass of space forever to allow its continuous expansion when the law of conservation of matter states that matter or energy could never be created? If the reply is that Big Bang Theory could generate more mass of space through the work of space and time, the result would turn up to be contradictory with the law of conservation of matter that states that matter and energy could never be created.
Big Bang Theory supports the continuous expansion of space. Is there any mass in the space? Yes, there is. The following is the extract from the 2nd paragraph in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state, under the sub-title, Vacuum State:
(According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is “by no means a simple empty space”, and again: “it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void.” According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.)
As the phrase, vacuum state…contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and PARTICLES that pop into and out of existence, is mentioned in the extract above, it implies that the space that is in vacuum state is never empty since it contains electromagnetic waves as well as particles that pop into and out of existence. Or in other words, the increase in space could cause the increase of electromagnetic waves as well as those particles that would pop into and out of existence in the space that is in vacuum state.
Is there any mass for particles or electromagnetic wave?
The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph of the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson, under the sub-title, Higgs boson:
(The Higgs boson or Higgs particle is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. The Higgs boson is predicted to exist for theoretical reasons, and may have been detected by experiments at the Large Hadron Collider. If confirmed, this detection would prove the existence of the hypothetical Higgs field—the simplest of several proposed mechanisms for the breaking of electroweak symmetry, and the means by which elementary particles acquire mass. The leading explanation is that a field exists that has non-zero strength everywhere—even in otherwise empty space—and that PARTICLES ACQUIRE MASS when interacting with this so-called Higgs field…)
As the phrase, particles acquire mass when interacting with the so-called Higgs field, is mentioned in the extract above, it gives the implication that there is mass among particles.
The title, Mass of an Electromagnetic Wave, in the website address, http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0041v2.pdf, has spelt out that there is mass for electromagnetic wave.
As there are particles as well as electromagnetic wave in the space in vacuum state and yet it has been proven above that there is mass among particles as well as electromagnetic wave, it would come to the conclusion that the particles in space that are in vacuum state have mass. As the expansion of this universe implies the increase in space results in the multiplication of particles as well as the increase in electromagnetic wave, the entire mass of this universe would increase simultaneously. Thus, the expansion of universe would lead to the entire increase of mass.
As the Big Bang Theory supports the expansion of this universe would lead to the entire increase of mass of space and yet the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass could not be created, how could this theory be reliable since it supports forever increasing of mass of space as if that the mass could be created even though it could not?
Big Bang Theory supports that the expansion of the universe is in slow pace ever since the beginning. Discuss.
The following is the extract from the 7th paragraph after the question, Is this universe expanding faster than the speed of light?, in the website address, http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575:
(If we use the definition of distance given above (and only if we use this definition and no other), then the Hubble constant tells us that for every megaparsec of distance between two galaxies, the apparent speed at which the galaxies move apart from each other is greater by 71 kilometers per second….)
As the phrase, the apparent speed at which the galaxies move apart from each other is greater by 71 kilometer per second, is mentioned above, it implies that this universe would have been expanding in a fast speed at 71 kilometre per second instead of in slow pace. As Big Bang Theory suggests a continuous expansion of this universe ever since its creation and it maintains such a high speed constantly at 71 kilometers per SECOND, the mass of space that it would have been generated must be many times bigger than the thing or the universe that would generate Big Bang Theory. How could this be possible for the mass that would be generated would be many times more than its original mass when the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass and energy cannot be created? Big Bang Theory is itself unreliable and contradictory.
The Big Bang Theory seems illogical especially its derivation would be from very tiny point. The following is the extract from the 3rd paragraph under the sub-title, The Big Bang, in the website address, http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html:
(The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.)
The phrase, The universe began…with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point, as mentioned above seems irrational and illogical since how this very tiny point could hold the mass that is equivalent to the total mass of space, planets, stars, comets and etc. of this modern universe especially the law of conservation of matter and energy states that mass cannot be created. Big Bang Theory is itself contradictory and unscientific.