Re: A redefinition of Anglicanism?

+$hInOWPDFwpo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

One would have to stretch scripture a bit to make this verse fit. :-)
The
woman was made to be a help for Adam.

<snip>

I find it odd that folk select one of the creation accounts in Genesis 1
and 2 to cite in support of their arguments:


I do not see more than one creation story.  To me, the second theme is a
flash back to when Adam was created, just in a more detailed account.


Peter Lear - I think if you read carefully you will see that one account
has 'Man' as the high point of Creation, and in the other account, the
Sabbath is the high point.  Also, one account treats God
anthropromorphically, and the other doesn't.


These may be the high points as you see them but I understand these writings
a little different.  The 1st chapter simply looks to me like elohiym
communicating his will and then completing each step of material ceration
from start to finish.

What in a different order, and using different words and grammatical structures?

It is only after man had been given an opportunity to
displayed his true rebellious tendency that things go heywire. What you
infer are high points, but not the purpose of the account, IMHO.  However,
it is curious to me that people in general can not see the simplicity of
this chapter.  But at the same time, they adopt the "Big Bang theory", which
pretty much agrees with parts of the biblical creation story that was put in
writing thousands of years ago.  IMHO, there is a chance that science will
catch up with this prehistoric revelation to mankind, but don't count on it
in our times.


<snip> 
27 So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created
them; male and female he created them. [NRSV]

So mankind was created higher than the animal knigdom. So?

Peter L - the point was the equality of men and women, wasn't that it?

No, that was not the point.

Sorry - I meant that the point that the discussion had reached when I butted in was that male and female were equally created in God's image, and this is supported in New Testament thinking.

The point was that it was not good, in God's
eyes, that man should be alone.  So elohiym corrects the situation with the
creation of the woman, but as a help "meet (KJV)" for Adam.  This is all
explained quite clearly starting in Gen 2:18.

In one of the accounts. 

And humans are self aware, and can make (but often don't) rational
choices.


This is generally true but the man and the woman have in general, a
different way of reasoning.  If you can't see this, you are in trouble.
Women are much more complicated than this.  They are achievers, and more
capable that man when they set their minds to getting something.  Just look
at what the woman's rights movement has brought them.  More work, less
closer to God.  But they chose this, not God, nor man.  If man were to start
all over, and they will, and follow God's suggestions for proper living on
His designed world for mankind, things would without a doubt in my mind,
follow what the bible predicts will happen during the last thousand years of
life on this sin filter called Earth.

Sorry - I think this is tosh.


<snip> 

How is it possible that people today can close an eye to history and deny
the different roles that the male and female had and are supposed to have
even today.
<snip>

I do so agree with this comment. Have a good weekend

Same to you Peter. 
Ta
Peter
--
Rev'd Peter Lear
Assistant Priest
Upper Coquetdale, Newcastle Diocese
.