Your twisting my words. How you deduced that God doesn’t exist from what I said I cannot imagine.
Kindly note that I did not deduce that God doesn’t exist. I deduced that God is not necessary.
There are a lot of difficult questions.
For many people, unfortunately God is o.k. for a miracle or two when miracles are needed. But is He really necessary in the first three loving chapters of Genesis once we get past the verses on the non-scientific version of the material universe. If literalistic reading is not the standard, what is God’s status? What is His relationship with humans?
What I am addressing is the complications and possible results in this sentence from your post 37. “The Church tells us that such a literalistic interpretation of Genesis is not necessary.” I used the word foolish as another way of responding to the last two words “not necessary.”
The below quote from an interview type article provides an interesting example of “The Church tells us that such a literalistic interpretation of Genesis is not necessary.” You probably never read this article. However, it is important to start exploring what is happening as a result of moving away from the literalism in the first three historical chapters of Genesis. This example from a Catholic priest is why Catholics need to go back to the literal events in the first three amazing chapters of Sacred Scripture.
"In an article about the first couple, Father wrote that Catholics who ask, “Were there an Adam and Eve?” would be better off asking another question: “Are there an Adam and Eve?” The answer, he said, “is a definite ‘yes.’ We find them when we look in the mirror. We are Adam, and we are Eve. … The man and woman of Genesis … are intended to represent an Everyman and Everywoman. They are paradigms, figurative equivalents, of human conduct in the face of temptation, not lessons in biology or history. The Bible is teaching religion, not science or literalistic history.”
My apology for jumping too fast to God is not necessary.
Sometimes we set aside the fact that the Evolution Model per se does not consider God is necessary. It is at this point where we need a clear understanding of the material realm because the Evolution Model is employed in the medical arena. The Evolution Model is proper in the material world at the same time that it can contradict Catholic doctrines such as the literal Adam and Eve, and the necessity of God in Genesis chapters 2 & 3. Therefore, we need to turn to literal details such as Genesis 1: 1; Genesis 1: 27; Genesis 2: 8; Genesis 2: 16-17; Genesis 3: 9; Genesis 3:14-19; Genesis 3: 23 as a start.
A literal truth flowing from the first three informative chapters of Genesis is precise because it is properly defined and duly declared by a major ecumenical Catholic Church Council guided by the precise wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Because of the issue of literalism, today, preciseness is not always followed when we look for actual Divine Revelation. The “media” quote above is a good example of the lack of literalism. It not only omits God’s literal encounter with Adam, Genesis 2:15-17; it sidesteps God’s literal intention in Genesis 1: 27.
Personally, my observation is that people have to get rid of the lazy way to read the first three intellectual chapters of Genesis. Bringing back the concept of literal information is very difficult.
The human person is worthy of profound respect.
