To think this is an inappropriate passage of the Bible for a school Christmas service?

[RevolutionofOurTime]

DD10 has been asked to do a reading at the school’s Xmas carol service.

The passage is Genesis 3: 8-15:

“And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, "Where are you?" So he said, "I heard your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked and I hid myself."

And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?" Then the man said, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate."

And the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"
The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." So the Lord God said to the serpent: "Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all cattle and more than every beast of the field. On your belly you shall go and you shall eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." “

I’m not impressed. Surely they could have chosen other (NT) passages where the focus is not on original sin (and don’t blame a woman for it 🧐)?

I’m an atheist, but was raised a Catholic and I have no objection to DD taking part in the service. I have been to countless midnight masses (Xmas services where I’m from) and I’m sure the Genesis was never the focus.

IABU to think this is not appropriate for a Christmas service?

Definitely appropriate and quite usual, as people have said. Start with Genesis and last reading standing for St Johns gospel ‘The Word’. Beautiful.

The reason it is appropriate is because without original sin there would have been no need for God to send his son to save humanity. It’s the beginning of the story. Without the Garden of Eden there would be no Christmas to celebrate.

For the purposes of this discussion Mary wasn’t immaculately conceived Freddo: this is an Anglican service so she can be assumed to be a normal human being cleansed at the point of the conception of Jesus.

Matthew 1:21
"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”

Jesus ' very name refers to sin (names are very significant in the Bible) - of course sin is INTEGRAL to the Christmas story.

I’m not forgetting the context of her age. And we are all speculating on very very little evidence. I would imagine that believers speculate informed consent (I am aware, before anyone points it out that that is an anachronistic concept) and for non believers the situation is more problematic.

We don’t know how old Mary was. We only know she was betrothed. She might have been 12 or 17. We just don’t know.

Can someone explain about the bruised heels please ?

It also has a literal meaning. The serpent had legs before he gave the Apple to Eve and lied to her. When God finds out, he curses the serpent to crawl on his belly in the dust (takes away the snakes legs). The bruising of the heels refers to how snakes bite humans usually on the heel. Humans hate and kill snakes by attacking the head of the snake.

Yes, I am stating the Catholic response to ideas around Mary's agreement to carry Jesus not around the previously mentioned Anglican service.

Mary would have been over 13 because she was Jewish and not old enough to marry until after her

In addition, the word used to describe Mary was almah which means only “young” not “virgin.” It is only decades after the religion started that the gospels start insisting Mary was not just young, but a virgin too.

Immaculate conception scientifically can happen through parthogenesis. Especially if Mary was intersex. She could have fertilised herself.

*her batmitzvah

12 for Orthodox Jews, surely? Ans I thought that Bat Mirzvah was a relatively recent thing?
But parthenogenesis? Seriously??

What a lovely post @bathroomideas. I feel very much the same about the service as it was the one point on Christmas Eve when as my father's behest we would down tools and listen to the service from Kings on the radio. He died several years ago and it’s now a moment for me now in the general madness to stop and think about him and how much he used to love it.

There’s something quite special about the service, the traditional nature of the lessons and the carols sung by the congregation and the unexpected of the carols sung by the choir.
I enjoy the short silences between each segment too and enjoy really listening to the words of the carols to see how they fit with the lesson that has preceded them. It’s a story told through readings and song and this particular story's beginning is that reading. It's the why to all that follows.

It definitely isn't the standard for the nine lessons!

It definitely is - if we’re talking about the King’s College 9L&C, on which other 9L&C are based. It’s not an ‘official’ CofE service format but is now well known and very widely used.

Hello Bertrand,
There was always a ceremony when a child became recognised as a man or woman. I agree it was not always called a batmitzvah.

Back in the time of Jesus, for girls it was after menarche or their first period. Due to poor nutrition, the youngest girls got their period then was 13, some as late as 18. The fact that Mary is described as a young woman in scripture means that she had reached adulthood by their society’s rules. In an age when people often became grandparents and died in their 40s, 25 is literally middle aged.

I think people are confusing the specific Nine Lessons and Carols Service with an ordinary Carol Service....

But parthenogenesis? Seriously??

Well, it’s a stretch. 😂 But really no more unlikely than any other miracle. It’s entirely possible that, if God truly did send Jesus as his son, he was actually the natural son of Joseph. God, if we accept His existence, can surely do whatever he likes! Equally, it seems a bit churlish for one to accept the existence of God, the Incarnation of Jesus, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection and the Ascension, and then quibble about the age of consent...

Can we have some sources, please, Plan?

Oh,
Yes Bertrand, parthogenesis is seriously real.
Often very rare natural occurrences were so strange that ancient peoples would attach religious significance to them. Call them miracles. Since God is the architect of all nature, then who is to say this is not the case? Science helps us understand how God works, it is not separate from God.
The forbidden tree in Genesis was the tree of all knowledge, not just of good and evil. Science is part of that knowledge.

Bertrand,
On coming of age, 13 was the sacred number to ancient Jews which is why it was the threshold from child to adult. The life stages and ages are listed in the Torah, the Mishnah, Shulchan Aruch, or Maimonides. See Mishnah Pirkei Avot 5:25, which states: ‘At five for Scripture, at 10 for Mishna, at 13 for Miztvot, at 15 for Gemara, at 18 for marriage . . . ‘

It was only 1500 years after Christ that a ceremony started and the girls age was reduced to 12 (orthodox) and then re-raised back to 13 by reformed Jews.

If you don’t believe that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit, there are much more likely explanations for the pregnancy. Occam’s
Razor and all that.

Ah yes, Occam's Razor.... Great idea by a Franciscan Friar (William of Ockham)

In all fairness, I do agree. If you believe that God is the creator of everything, then I don't see the trouble in believing that He would be capable of creating life without the act of sex.

“ Ah yes, Occam's Razor.... Great idea by a Franciscan Friar (William of Ockham)”
Eh? Why did you feel the need to say that?

Well, yes, it seems much more likely that the historical man we now call Jesus was conceived in the usual way. But faith isn’t about what is likely.

churchandstate
Nobody sat down and made it [sc. Christianity] up.

Indeed; you are right, of course. But no-one suggested that. It is, however, as I did write (quoting you), 'exactly "like something someone sat down and fabricated for a laugh". '

It is an interesting aspect of human social development that, as you say, a religious tradition which grew out of a complex set of morals, social systems and belief systems can issue in beliefs such as the one here about the rib-woman, the talking snake and the magical tree. Perhaps you can see why, from the outside, as it were, such a belief might be seen as being like something made up for a giggle?

It is interesting, too, that you seem to read me as ' want[ing] to teach my children that the claims of Christianity aren't true.' The point was that I had no need to teach my children anything of the sort; having, by good chance, not been exposed when young to what we might call religion-as-truth, they grew up seeing the rib-woman/talking snake/magic tree story (and all the rest) as just another silly tale, albeit with interesting origins -- like, for instance, Thursday/Thor's hammer/thunder-and-lightning, or Joseph Smith/ Angel Moroni/Golden Plates ... etc.

I know it is difficult, churchandstate, to place oneself imaginatively outside one's own culturally-determined belief-set. It can be a useful exercise, though, and one that might be helped by trying to see how stories such as rib-woman-and-the-talking-snake might appear to others such as my children who do not share your own culturally-determined respect for a particular Holy Book. Try.

As for ' talking out of your bottom ', one thing I did try to teach my children successfully as far as I can tell is that use of such language demeans the user rather than the intended recipient of the slur. There is another lesson for you there, even given this is only the internet.

I think people are confusing the specific Nine Lessons and Carols Service with an ordinary Carol Service

Well, a lot of ordinary carol services base themselves on the Nine Lessons and Carols format in my experience, but even if this specific one doesn't, the point is that as this is the traditional first reading at the most famous carol service in this country, it can hardly be said to be inappropriate for carol services in general.

As for ' talking out of your bottom ', one thing I did try to teach my children successfully as far as I can tell is that use of such language demeans the user rather than the intended recipient of the slur. There is another lesson for you there, even given this is only the internet.

I genuinely do think you are talking out of it, though. Teach your children whatever you like. I am quite content without your lessons.

I don’t believe Christianity sounds in any way like something someone made up. I think it sounds more complex than that, even when interpreted entirely on a historical/social level. It has nothing to do with ‘respect’.