Catholics and Protestants BOTH in error

[Sixtus]

I get very embarrassed in Mass when there are readings from Genisis about creation.

In particular 'God created Adam then after a time period created Eve [which is supposed to mean ‘from Adam’].

That sounds fine but in reality we know that woman could not have come from man seeings ‘female’ is the most primitive and primeavil state. An emasculated woman remains a woman but an emasculated man reverts to female. That proves beyond all element of a doubt that woman is the basic state and that ‘male’ comes from female.

Why then does all Catholic and Protestant still teach this fundamental error as truth just because the bible says so.

I think this is not witnessing to the bible but doing it a grave injustice

 

[Steadfast]

Are you saying that God cannot have done things the way the Bible portrays them because that contradicts your scientific assumptions?
​

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Has it ever occurred to you that scientific research and findings may have error? Has it ever occurred to you that the interpretation you give of ‘scientific truth’ regarding “the female state” might be in error? (What exactly is your ‘source’ for your statement. . .because I have never seen an ‘emasculated male revert to being female’. . .)

Haven’t even some of the wisest scientists made hypotheses and theories which were embraced as ‘true’, yet on further findings were discovered to be incomplete at best and false at worst?

Just wondering. . .

 

[Goblin_Taters]

Originally Posted by Sixtus:

That sounds fine but in reality we know that woman could not have come from man seeings ‘female’ is the most primitive and primeavil state. An emasculated woman remains a woman but an emasculated man reverts to female. That proves beyond all element of a doubt that woman is the basic state and that ‘male’ comes from female.

Your language is loaded. An emasculated man does not “revert” to female but only takes on female characteristics due to the removal of his testicles which produce male hormones. Likewise, a woman who is pumped with testosterone does not become a man but takes on male characteristics, such as a deeper voice, facial hair, etc. An emasculated man still possess XY chromosomes. A woman, even if pumped with testerone, still will have XX chromosomes. There are rare genetic variations, granted, but the general model holds true.

 

[KarenNC]

(What exactly is your ‘source’ for your statement. . .because I have never seen an ‘emasculated male revert to being female’. . .)

I believe this may be what the poster is referencing:

Mammalian embryos begin with the potential to develop both the male and female reproductive organs–the Wolffian and Mullerian systems (though they from conception have either a male or female chromosonal pattern based on X and Y chromosones). The development of these reproductive organs is dependent upon a complex interaction of the chromosones, hormones, etc. the Wolfian system develops into the male reproductive organs and the Mullerian into the female.

The Mullerian is the default. In the absence of the Y chromosone (or if it does not function properly for some reason), the Mullerian system will develop. If the person is chromosonally XY but the Y does not function properly, that person will be visually female (though there may be other issues related to it in terms of physical development and functionality) and may never know otherwise unless a chromosone test is done.

homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/class/psy308/Humm/ReviewofSexualDifferentiation

 

[kangnamdragon]

It sounds a little sexist to say females are more primitive than men.

 

[pedja]

I think this is not witnessing to the bible but doing it a grave injustice

you are doing greater injustice if you dont tell people that they are not descendants of chimpanzees

 

[Goblin_Taters]

Originally Posted by KarenNC:

I believe this may be what the poster is referencing:

Mammalian embryos begin with the potential to develop both the male and female reproductive organs–the Wolffian and Mullerian systems (though they from conception have either a male or female chromosonal pattern based on X and Y chromosones). The development of these reproductive organs is dependent upon a complex interaction of the chromosones, hormones, etc. the Wolfian system develops into the male reproductive organs and the Mullerian into the female.

The Mullerian is the default. In the absence of the Y chromosone (or if it does not function properly for some reason), the Mullerian system will develop. If the person is chromosonally XY but the Y does not function properly, that person will be visually female (though there may be other issues related to it in terms of physical development and functionality) and may never know otherwise unless a chromosone test is done.

The remaining questions I have:

Can a person who at conception has X chromosome(s) but no Y chromosome(s) take on Y chromosome(s) later in life? Conversely, can a pesron with a combination of X chromosome(s) and Y chromosome(s) lose one’s Y chromosome(s)? If you know of such cases, I’d like to hear them, because I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest this is possible.

I understand male to be a person who has at least one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. A female has X but not Y chromosome(s). At conception one either has X without Y or X and Y. There is no YY syndrome.

Just because a person has certain characteristics of another sex does not mean the person is that sex.

For example, just because a person goes through life thinking one’s parents are one’s biological parents, based on what one is told and based on all good appearances, does not disclude the possibility of the fact that the person’s parents are not the true biological parents, but only perhaps the foster parents of a bastard son in the blood family. Only a genetic test can tell the person whose one’s real parents are. Likewise, although a person appear to be female in many ways, including one’s physical characteristics, and is viewed as female by others, does not mean the person is female in fact. Only a test can tell.

 

[cubalibre]

This thread illustrates the dangers in taking some of the creation story too literally. A certain truth is being communicated but not in 21st century language. There are many ways of trying to understand this particular passage that does not offend science or Catholicism. For example, what is the difference between the x and y chromosomes appearance-wise. The Y chromosome is missing part of a rib!
Also a person who has the XO genotype is not a default female. The are infertile and have many physical anomalies. Its called Turner’s syndrome. Check out this link:
nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000379.htm

saludos, cubalibre

 

[thomasf]

you are doing greater injustice if you dont tell people that they are not descendants of chimpanzees

There are no descendants of chimpanzees because chimpanzees are a current species. I do believe I know what you’re getting at with evolution, and as usual this is an incorrect assumption as to what evolution is all about.

 

[teachccd]

Why then does all Catholic and Protestant still teach this fundamental error as truth just because the bible says so.

I think this is not witnessing to the bible but doing it a grave injustice

In Genesis, Chapters 1 through 11:26 are not to be taken as historical and scientific accounts. However we must refer to these scriptures as they were revealed in order to give it’s Author justice. No one was there and so there is no scientific proof that the theory you propose took place at that time. God authored creation and so that includes science which is merely the discoveries of His creations. Could you even stop for a moment and imagine what would happen if we disected every verse for a scientific examination ?? Allow our God to reveal Himself to us as He sees fit. All of this mumbo-jumbo chromosome theory stuff is infinitely elementary to an Almighty God. Every time we climb to where we think we’re there, we look up and still never see the top. That’s where God is…God Bless

 

[LilyM]

Sure the female reproductive system is the default for developing embryos, all other things being equal.

But a grown, developed male who is emasculated is no closer to being a woman than a menopausal woman is to being a man. 90% of the key indicators of gender, particularly the reproductive system and most importantly the chromosomes themselves, remain present and unaffected in either case.

 

[teachccd]

Oh, and before anyone might think that my views are ignorant to modern science or contradictory in any way, first prove me wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt. And then I’ve met God…

 

[Sixtus]

Steadfast

Are you saying that **God cannot have done things **the way the Bible portrays them because that contradicts your scientific ****assumptions?

God could do anything He choses.

But the fact is that there is no evidence in creation that He ever does things which undermine the principles of creation. Neither evidence that God contradicts the laws of nature which He created.

Assumptions: proven laws of nature are not assumptions. All the evidence proves that female is the primitive state. There is no evidence that a woman ever returns to the male state but there is lots of evidence that men return to the female state. Cut off a man’s testosterone for example and he grows breasts. He ceases to grow body hair. There are other fundamental changes which I would not be allowed to mention else the moderators will object.

These are absolute facts not assumptions. Emasculated women remain women, emasculated men become female. That is a biological and physiological fact not an assumption. Therefore male comes from female since that is the state he returns when masculinity is denied him. But woman does not become male when the situation is reversed.

 

[Steadfast]

So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Gen. 2:21-22

Are you saying that God didn’t do this?

 

[pedja]

In Genesis, Chapters 1 through 11:26 are not to be taken as historical and scientific accounts. However we must refer to these scriptures as they were revealed in order to give it’s Author justice. No one was there and so there is no scientific proof that the theory you propose took place at that time. God authored creation and so that includes science which is merely the discoveries of His creations. Could you even stop for a moment and imagine what would happen if we disected every verse for a scientific examination ?? Allow our God to reveal Himself to us as He sees fit. All of this mumbo-jumbo chromosome theory stuff is infinitely elementary to an Almighty God. Every time we climb to where we think we’re there, we look up and still never see the top. That’s where God is…God Bless

Who determines if Genesis 1-11 is or is not to be taken literally? Scientists?

 

[pedja]

Sixtus:
God could do anything He choses.

But the fact is that there is no evidence in creation that He ever does things which undermine the principles of creation. Neither evidence that God contradicts the laws of nature which He created.

Assumptions: proven laws of nature are not assumptions. All the evidence proves that female is the primitive state. There is no evidence that a woman ever returns to the male state but there is lots of evidence that men return to the female state. Cut off a man’s testosterone for example and he grows breasts. He ceases to grow body hair. There are other fundamental changes which I would not be allowed to mention else the moderators will object.

These are absolute facts not assumptions. Emasculated women remain women, emasculated men become female.That is a biological and physiological fact not an assumption. Therefore male comes from female since that is the state he returns when masculinity is denied him. But woman does not become male when the situation is reversed.

I think Jesus very often contradicted several natural laws that he Himself created, for example walking on water is not supported by any laws of modern physics. Apart from that His resurrection is scientifically impossible as well, so how come were not that strictly scientific when its about resurrection? There is no reason not to believe God created the world exactly as described in Genesis. The Darwinian theory of evolution is a philosophy mostly created for reasons of undermining God`s authority and the authority of His written word.

 

[LilyM]

Sixtus:
God could do anything He choses.

But the fact is that there is no evidence in creation that He ever does things which undermine the principles of creation. Neither evidence that God contradicts the laws of nature which He created.

Assumptions: proven laws of nature are not assumptions. All the evidence proves that female is the primitive state. There is no evidence that a woman ever returns to the male state but there is lots of evidence that men return to the female state. Cut off a man’s testosterone for example and he grows breasts. He ceases to grow body hair. There are other fundamental changes which I would not be allowed to mention else the moderators will object.

These are absolute facts not assumptions. Emasculated women remain women, emasculated men become female. That is a biological and physiological fact not an assumption. Therefore male comes from female since that is the state he returns when masculinity is denied him. But woman does not become male when the situation is reversed.

Yes and women who hit menopause usually find their voices deepen, their facial hair increases while they can become thinner on top, and one or two other changes that I too am unable to mention for fear of the mods. In other words they often start to develop male characteristics.

Feel free to PM me with your additional evidence - I can probably provide you just as much from the perspective of the female whose oestrogen levels drop.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Greetings and peace be with you Sixtus;

Beyond a doubt your research has shown that God is not able to create a man before a woman.

In the spirit of searching

Eric

 

[jack_hawkins]

I believe this may be what the poster is referencing:

Mammalian embryos begin with the potential to develop both the male and female reproductive organs–the Wolffian and Mullerian systems (though they from conception have either a male or female chromosonal pattern based on X and Y chromosones). The development of these reproductive organs is dependent upon a complex interaction of the chromosones, hormones, etc. the Wolfian system develops into the male reproductive organs and the Mullerian into the female.

The Mullerian is the default. In the absence of the Y chromosone (or if it does not function properly for some reason), the Mullerian system will develop. If the person is chromosonally XY but the Y does not function properly, that person will be visually female (though there may be other issues related to it in terms of physical development and functionality) and may never know otherwise unless a chromosone test is done.

homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/class/psy308/Humm/ReviewofSexualDifferentiation

Someone who is XO (Turner’s syndrome) is phenotypically female but without treatment never develops secondary sexual characteristics.
People with testicular feminisation look more female than females!