you're forgeting the cultural context of when and where these passages were written (ie: slavery, animal sacrifices, etc . . .)
Well my point was, alongside the morally reprehensible behavior the Bible condones, is that there is also a great deal of forgery, deceit, and invention within the bible. Entire passages were written in Greek that don't make sense in Aramaic, in conversation, contextually, or otherwise. Entire passages are considered apocryphal in a work where it is blatantly obvious that an editor made a substantial addition to the original content. In addition, some unknown authors would write as "Paul", "John", "Peter", etc. so they could promote their own spin on the theology.
Its funny how the women in Paul's churches are quite active in his documented epistles, yet in the pastoral epistles they are commanded to remain inactive and submissive to their husbands, AND to remain silent in church.
I seriously recommend you audit a few theology courses taught by an objective professor.
It would be quite an enlightening experience. You'd be surprised to learn that the outstanding majority of serious, respected Biblical scholars are not religious. Bart Ehrman, the perhaps the most respected of them all, basically thinks (as a conclusion of extensive research, Greek & Aramaic etymology, etc.) that Jesus was a disillusioned madman who believed that he would reign ON EARTH with God within the lifetime of his disciples, and there would be a grand judgment where the "chaff was separated from the wheat", so to speak. Its already been 2000 years, and no such judgment has taken place. If you read Mark closely, the original Gospel and source material for the remainder, written initially and the most authorized gospel according to scholars, you will see that Jesus believed the kingdom would come within 40-50 years max.
furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church accepts the theory of evolution
Well thats stupid, you basically acknowledged that your own creation narrative is wrong.
If you can't vouch for Genesis 1 - 11, why would you consider defending John 3:16 then?
Genesis says quite clearly that God formed man from the dust of the Earth, AFTER he had already created the animals and vegetation. Man was ALWAYS a separate entity from beast.
The concessions are lame, you basically let go of everything science can EMPIRICALLY PROVE is wrong, yet still hold on to these antiquated notions that extend well beyond the bounds of modern science (i.e: the spiritual realm).
Do you believe in the literal resurrection?
Jesus' claim that he was the voice of the burning bush that appeared before Moses?
Where do you draw the line??
lastly, God creating the universe is compatible with the Big Bang theory. Who do you think caused it? I'll give you hint . . .
I have as much right to claim that my Grandmother was responsible for the Big Bang.
Seriously, you don't have to take every unknown variable and attribute it to God.
Besides, in that sense, you basically reduce God to nothing more than the input energy responsible for the initial explosion. That is a long, long stretch from the anthropomorphic, personified God with his characteristic wrath, jealously, and punishment (remarkably human attributes).
