And because you are a fundamentalist, you are stuck in those bible passages. ok
Now you want to discuss science?
No sir I do not. Hard to conceive of a loving deity that didn’t show it in the books in the bible. Killing off all the world except eight people, check. Smiting someone for not getting his brother’s wife knocked up, check. Killing David’s child because of what David did, check. Near genocide of the Egyptian people via plagues, check. Ordering Saul to commit genocide and then being angry for not doing so, check. Destruction of Sodom for wanting to have relations with agender, asexual angels, check. In no way do I believe most if allof these things happened but by the account the character of God in the bible is in no way loving. Oh and before you bring up the rainbow, Yahweh only pledged not to flood the earth again because of the sacrifice Noah made, not because of feeling sorry.
Well then that would bring up the question of proving god exists but that isn’t in this thread.
Right, all because you read the bible as a fundamentalist. And a very negative one at that. I am sorry for you.
I am not a fundamentalist. Here try this. You are wanting to convince someone a story is true. So how would one do so. Well one way is to provide locations or details that have a physical place. George Washington chopped down a cherry tree would be an example because, I was taught this happened, it is reasonable. If you were trying to convince someone that Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter was real one would use Lincoln’s birthplace as well as people Lincoln was known to have spoken to so that would add credibility to the story.And because you are a fundamentalist, you are stuck in those bible passages. ok
Now you want to discuss science?
I am not a geneticist.
And I have no problem with human origin occurring wherever it did.
You are somewhat pre-judiced.
You assume that all religious people are fundamentalist Christians who take the bible with literalist scientism and as literalist history.
The Catholic Church does not think that way. I’m sorry you do. Fundamentalism is no fun.
Actually I was taught this in a Catholic school. I was also told that Jesus created birds out of clay and when he looked at someone cross they would drop dead.
Considering the story was told from a strongly patriarchal society we can see why male was first. They just believed that men were first before women. Yahweh, to me, is way more male bent and heavily biased to such. He was a war type deity after all.
There is no question.
Wow.
I do believe that story is in the proto gospel of Thomas. Didn’t make it into the Catholic bible for some reason, maybe because it shows Jesus as a demi deity that has very human qualities. Oh and a sister was the one who related that story to us. I think around third grade.
Thank you for your rapid reply. That is a valid observation. I wonder though, are there any other views? If we lean too heavily on comparing Gods proclivities to mans then we are dangerously close to going back to Anthropomorphizing God like the earlier Greeks did and I believe that would be woefully incorrect.
Unfortunately, you have repeated the exact opposite of Catholic teachings. You are not alone on CAF. You and the other readers are certainly welcomed to your own opinions.
Why was Adam first?
Sorry that common sense is not used when we get older. I have done my best to point out the common sense found in the first three historical chapters in Genesis…
Common sense would say that humans being unique (difference between a beaver dam and the Hoover Dam) a divine super-natural Being had to be in existence. Unfortunately, common sense is not top drawer. I have done my best. That is all I can do.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions.
Or just maybe, like the other hundred or so known “Gospels” that didn’t make the cut, it just didn’t reflect Christian faith and teaching. Some are far loopier than what you describe here.
If we had to defend every silly thing that a sister or groups of sisters said over the last couple of centuries that hasd no basis in Catholic teaching . . .
Yes was aware of the source…and yes why it is not Scripture (aside from it being dated long after).