Why does science always upstage God?

[Whateverist]

That's surprising... to hear it told, it's as if the whole of that pesky OT was made allegory

That was actually done by the jews.  Two schools existed, alexandrian and palestinian, and both where what we now call allegorists.  They advanced, and importantly drew from the earliest preserved writings of the prophets, and we call the subtlely different systems mystical and typological respectively. 

Catholicism was made to re-assert the literal presumption of the narrative.  They have, over the centuries, negotiated with their constituency over that article, but as a matter of dogma catholocism insists that genesis is not allegory, particularly that a man and a woman were created, the first human beings rtom which we all descend (somehow), and through adam inherit our sin or sinful nature(somehow) - as well as the fallen state of this world(somehow).

Without this, literal, interpretation.  There is no need for christ, or for the rituals, cantrips, and magic spells of the catholic church then or now.

I have no reason to doubt you have the history right (nor am I possessed of enough fucks one way or another to check for myself).  But I still think there is room for self-identified Catholics and even the institution as a whole to make their way to an allegorical understanding of the resurrection and everything else.  In the end, those who remain religious as well as well educated, open and reflective will realize that all of it is allegorical.  I'm sure there are Catholic clergy now who hold their faith in that way.  They just have no scruples about talking down to those who need to hear them in literal fairy tales .

---

In short, they allow and provide support for catholics to -be- bad catholics, but they don't hesitate to re-assert their orthodoxy in official documentation.  Genesis is real history insomuch as the central mystery of catholicism is a fact even if they're not going to set anybody on a pile of twigs about it (anymore).  They don;t give a shit about the rest of the nutty christians literalist beliefs..those may not be true, under the bus they go........ but theirs infallibly are.

Cross their hearts, scouts honor, and no science can or will ever say anything to the contrary no matter the fact that all science says everything to the contrary.  Catholicism is batshit crazy biblical literalism...even if catholics aren't.

There you go, common ground.

---

Atheists and theists: there is no verb in the autographed languages of Scripture that can possibly be translated as "create, creation, Creator". That comes from the Latin creatura and does not belong. All the verbs associated as such are all verbs of "make(life), form(Adam), build(Eve). The Latin idea of ex nilio(from nothing) is a false one.

Arguments between anti-theistic(I did not include atheists here) magic evolution and magic creation are then pointless. I'm sorry that the rest of the theists don't see it this way.

As a theist, I don't believe in creationism as the text does not support such an idea. I also don't believe in allegory as then it becomes an opinion. I am a literalist outside of the prison of theology which is purely man-made. And as a theist, I definitely want to know how God did it. I'm here and I all ears.

May I suggest that the mechanism of life is a simple matter(that's all I can do) matter of vacuum mechanics where God very naturally commanded the energy transference according to the principle of energy transference established by Einstein? If Jesus commanded and energy transference when He turned water into wine then...

Or maybe the whole idea of creating/making any part of the natural world is simply a wrong turn.  Why does that matter?  Can't the idea of a god as an earlier, intrinsic, coexistent form of consciousness which sometimes has the capacity to enhance insight and make connections (or sometimes obstruct the same) be of enough significance to justify your interest?  Or maybe, like me, you just eventually realize there all the old forms of ritual just don't seem worth it.

Still, seen as a more primal/primitive form of consciousness you could feel gratitude for its willingness to stand aside and both make possible and allow the implementation of our conscious minds.  It's a stretch, granted, but it has to be better than being a literalist.