A claim that is doubly bizarre, since there are no parts that offend science and the "if" at the beginning is an insurmountable obstacle to your relevance.
...you attribute it to God and then insist it is full of historical and scientific errors...
Nope. It's got nothing to do with errors. It's about the wisdom to know what is literal and what is allegory.
BTW, your hypocrisy and inconsistency as to when you will listen to "science" and when you will not is what led that crazy guy in Minnesota to do what he did.
My hypocrisy did that?
That's claim is beneath you. I'll accept your apology.
If I accepted the "new testament," I'd accept all of it, not just the parts that don't offend "science."
A claim that is doubly bizarre, since there are no parts that offend science
So, science doesn't have the authority to declare that dead people don't come back to life, that people can't be born from virgins, loaves and fishes don't multiply (other than by dividing them!), or that bread and wine don't become flesh and blood, but it does have the authority to sit in judgment of G-d's historical account of the creation? Interesting. (Please pardon my use of a euphemism here.)
...you attribute it to God and then insist it is full of historical and scientific errors...
Nope. It's got nothing to do with errors. It's about the wisdom to know what is literal and what is allegory.
And who determines what is literal and what is allegory? The ancient popes? The church fathers? The councils? No sirree. "Science" determines what is literal and what is allegory. Except that "science" dare not do the same thing to the "new testament" that it does to the "old" our you'll tell it where to get off.
My hypocrisy did that?
You and every Catholic who shares your hypocritical inconsistency. Absolutely. The same goes for the J*sus Seminar.
That's claim is beneath you.
The claim is true.
I'll accept your apology.
That'll be hard to do, seeing as how I'm not giving one.