Here at last is the TRUE story of Creation (courtesy of Roz Chast)

HERE'S ONE VERSION OF THE CREATION --
from the Fourth Day: The lighting of the firmament

THE ANGEL URIEL: In full splendor rises now
the sun, streaming:
a wondrous bridegroom,
a giant, proud and happy
to run his path.

With gentle motion and soft shimmer
the moon steals through the silent night.

Waldemar Kmentt (t), Uriel; Bavarian Radio Chorus and Symphony Orchestra, Eugen Jochum, cond. Philips, recorded July 1966

NOTE: We originally heard this excerpt, along with a snippet from the First Day ("And a new world, and a new world springs up, springs up at God's word"), and then fuller versions of both, in February 2013. We heard the orchestral introduction to Haydn's Creation, "The Representation of Chaos," and the ensuing first steps of the Creation, in August 2012.

by Ken

I had an interesting encounter in the comments section last week growing out of my post "How nice to have a straight person point out that "marriage is for procreation" isn't just legal but religious BS." In the post I tried to explain that as long as religious cultists pretend to have a "definition" of marriage that's based on a link between marriage and procreation, it's moronic, lying bullshit, since no denomination I'm aware of makes any effort to require procreation as a condition of marriage. (Sure, banning contraception is a step in that direction, but it's a small step. The right to marriage isn't altered if a couple is unable to procreate or even chooses not to.) Which elicited this (anonymous) comment:

Marriage was established by God and is a ancient tradition. It cannot be defined by the state. Thus, by pure definition of the original creator, same sex people cannot create a union of marriage. It is just not possible.

I replied focusing on (a) the commenter's apparent unawareness that in fact marriage is defined by the state, in vast quantities of federal, state, and local laws; and (b) the utter bogosity of the non-defining "traditional" definition of marriage. What I didn't get into was the commenter's touching, idiotic, and ultimately pathetic notion that he has the basis for any idea of what God may have said about anything. All our commenter has to go by is a pile of gibberish and lies smooshed together over a long period of time by a daisy chain of clueless drudges and purveyors of gibberish and lies. Having faith is one thing, but being a total ignoramus and tool is another.

Since there aren't many aspects of religious faith more controversial than the Creation, I thought it would be entertaining to juxtapose a couple of versions. Above we've heard a snatch of one, which I hasten to add isn't biblical, although Haydn's great oratorio The Creation is of course based on the account in Genesis. It is, however, the vision of a great artistic humanist.

SO HERE'S OUR OTHER VERSION
OF THE CREATION -- THE TRUE ONE
(from the August 11 and 18 issue of The New Yorker)

#