How do the religious manage to maintain social relationships?

Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat
Any forensic specialist will tell you that while looking at the physical evidence can reveal many truths, 1) they do not reveal the whole truth and 2) can be just as subject to bias interpretation.

I have yet to find any evidence that causes us to wholesale discount the Bible. Now I am honest enough to say that one certainly cannot take it on a literal word for word basis with no accounting for translation errors, errors in copying (prior to mechanical methods and even then....Adulterer's Bible anyone?), and cultural/era context writing. I will say that there is plenty of evidence that allows us to completely discount many things that the various churches tell us is "right and proper" that really aren't covered by the bible, such as evolution.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that evolution is wrong?

Are you saying that the world/universe is a few thousand year sold?

maquiscat said:

Actually no. The earth is several million years old as determined by science and the universe is many billions or more. I and many other, indeed most, Christians find no conflict with evolution and the concept that God created everything. Do not mistake the rantings of a vocal minority, or of the "official church", as representative of most of us. Science can show us how the universe works, but it does nothing to disprove that God "built the machinery" by which it works. Nor does it prove that He did or even exists. That's where faith comes in.

I love how you try to take what those of us disagreeing with you are saying and force our words into the fundamentalist Christian worldview. Highly dishonest.

Click to expand...

I don't see how I have put words in your mouth at all. You expressed a view that seemed to be not a creationist one and I asked questions to clarify it.

Since you say that Genesis is wrong or mythical, that there was never a world flood etc as is proven by every river valley without the marks of such an event and with the geology of the billions of years of the earth's past, which bits of the new Testament are also mythical?

And how exactly is asking a question dishonest?

Tim the plumber said:

Are you saying that evolution is wrong?

Are you saying that the world/universe is a few thousand year sold?

Click to expand...

You already asked these questions. And then responded to the answers in the same post. What was the point of asking them again?

I don't see how I have put words in your mouth at all. You expressed a view that seemed to be not a creationist one and I asked questions to clarify it.

Since you say that Genesis is wrong or mythical, that there was never a world flood etc as is proven by every river valley without the marks of such an event and with the geology of the billions of years of the earth's past, which bits of the new Testament are also mythical?

And how exactly is asking a question dishonest?

Click to expand...

It was the way you asked and the wording you gave. You made the implications of what I believed. Were you truly curious the questions would be more along the line of "What is your position on Evolution vs Creationism and/or on the Big Bang Theory vs Young Earth Theory?" You imply with your wording that because I am a Christian that I automatically believe that evolution is wrong and that the earth is only 5-6 thousand years old.

At no point did I say that Genesis is wrong or mythical. Again you put words into my mouth. As far as the creation of the universe in 6 days, since the sun wasn't created until the "3rd day" and it is the sun that we humans use to measure the length of a day, I would say that that is evidence that we are not talking human days in regards to the creation of life, the universe and everything. Now I will admit that I am on the line as to whether or not Adam and Eve are archetypal or were literally created on the spot. That said, if you look at the wording of God creating man out of the dust of the earth, that seems rather a close description of humans originally evolving out of the primordial ooze, worded for those with limited conceptual ability.

As to the flood, IIRC there is a common strata that covers the Mideast and a large area surrounding it, indicating a massive flood event. Now looking at the evolution and migration theories that is also the area that is considered the "cradle of life" where man more or less started and then migrated outward from. To flood out the world would not have necessitated flooding the entire planet. As far as man was concerned that area was the whole world.

Now it wouldn't surprise me to have you claim that I am engaging in revisionist activity. When you think about it, our scientists engage in such activities all the time. As new evidence and new data becomes available we've gone from the threat of global cooling to global warming in my lifetime alone. To look at an event/object/whatever in a different paradigm is not really revisionist but simply shifting paradigms; looking at it from a different angle. I force other Christians to do so all the time. For example, (using the assumption of the account of Jesus to be true) I point out to them that Jesus could have easily have been married and had children and still been the perfect sinless sacrifice. I will agree with you that there are indeed those Christians who will do whatever it takes to support their literal interpretation of the Bible as worded in their native language. However, I do not find that Christians, or any religious grouping, are any more or less likely to engage in revisionist activity than non-religious people.

Tim the plumber said:

You will understand that I think that you have just done exactly the fact shift thing I am talking about.

You have said that I put words in your mouth but when I challenged that and showed the thread of the exchange you change it to me assuming that you believed in the literal word of the Bible. Then sought to justify this by focusing on some sort of supposed wrong way that my questions have been framed.

Click to expand...

Wait. You are taking a different interpretation than yours of what and why you said and calling it fact shifting? ROFLMFAO

Genesis says that God created all the plants then all the animals on separate days. I know your fact shift over the word day. The problem is that the animals and plants of the world have evolved together. The creation account is wrong. You then gloss over the fact of our common ancestry with the other apes.

Click to expand...

Check your genetics. We have more in common genetically with pigs than with apes. Who's fact shifting now? As to the plants and animals, over the course of millions of years with only a relatively scant few fossils to work with not even scientist can say with certainty that the two run parallel. As is, it is more logical for the plants to have developed first so as to soak up the CO2 from the formation of the planet and convert it into O2 for the use of animal life.

I think your posts are a fine example of the fact shift I am talking about.

Click to expand...

As are yours, good sir. As are yours.

Tim the plumber said:

On another forum I have exchanged posts with a Christian who's detractors have sent me a PM which linked to this;



I have anonymized it as far as I can for obvious reasons. I don't know which side is right or which is wrong.

I have had the same sort of experience with almost all the Christians I have come across. That is an ability to rewrite the past. That if there was a situation in which they looked bad they will simply change the facts.

Is this a Christian thing?

Is it something which happens due to the "training" resulting from religious education?

Is it something they did before they got God and religion is just a good justification for "believing" in things which you know are not true?

I just don't get it.

Click to expand...

I'm just trying to figure out what's the 'social relationship' here? This is 'family drama' - run of the mill - coupled with some stupid 'online drama' where people are just so strange and hung up on other people's lives and think everything matters and is worthy of discussing all over the net.

I don't get why you're trying to draw attention to it - what does that say about you?

maquiscat said:

Wait. You are taking a different interpretation than yours of what and why you said and calling it fact shifting? ROFLMFAO

Click to expand...

No. You said that I said things I did not say. That is generally called lying but I get told off on this forum for using that word so i call it fact shifting. It's so easy really.

Check your genetics. We have more in common genetically with pigs than with apes. Who's fact shifting now? As to the plants and animals, over the course of millions of years with only a relatively scant few fossils to work with not even scientist can say with certainty that the two run parallel. As is, it is more logical for the plants to have developed first so as to soak up the CO2 from the formation of the planet and convert it into O2 for the use of animal life.

Click to expand...

Since you have come across this claim you should have also come across this

No, Humans Are Not Chimp-Pig Hybrids

Click to expand...

It explains why it's a lie.

Aunt Spiker said:

I'm just trying to figure out what's the 'social relationship' here? This is 'family drama' - run of the mill - coupled with some stupid 'online drama' where people are just so strange and hung up on other people's lives and think everything matters and is worthy of discussing all over the net.

I don't get why you're trying to draw attention to it - what does that say about you?

Click to expand...

I'm just using it as an example of the thinking process which I come across.

Tim the plumber said:

I'm just using it as an example of the thinking process which I come across.

Click to expand...

I'm still trying to understand your process of evaluating the thinking processes of others. My guess is you're Frank Chu, or maybe a disciple of the 12 galaxies.:fueltofir