Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: TTAERUM@ualtavm.bitnet Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Strangers in a Strange World Message-ID: Date: 4 Jan 90 07:28:11 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 35 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu As usual, any discussion of the first 2 chapters of Genesis creates more heat than light. Two issues seem to predominate: contraception and creation. With respect to contraception, the command "be fruitful and multiply" is set in juxtaposition with "subdue the earth". More correctly, these words ought to be seen as blessings rather than commands. That is, every- thing at this point is 'good' - sin has not yet entered into the picture. and one is "fruitful" simply by G-d's command in the same way that the earth is "created" simply by G-d's command. There comes a point, in this imperfect world, however, when to be fruitful is not to be blessed. Lest anyone gain too much comfort from this thought, I will also suggest that some people decide to be unfruitful simply because they do not agree with G-d that to be fruitful is to be blessed. Some simply do not like people (except for themselves) and definitely do not like children. Others (I believe the figure is about 5%) are simply unable to have children and obviously this discussion is NOT about them. With respect to the question of creation, I have yet to see a carpenter who 'apologizes' for how he makes something. If an observer argues with the carpenter that his brief description of how he made something is inadequate, he will likely get my sympathy but not much more. If he argues that it couldn't have been made that way then the first test would be to see if the other person could make the same article. If he couldn't then my attention would wander rather quickly. The critic might be right, of course, but he will certainly have difficulty proving it. The case in point is somewhat like a first century man telling a 20th century man that men cannot fly - it might be a question of definition and experience So, who's right? Well, I think I am - but then again. Terry Taerum