AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Oh nononononl that's not what I mean. I'm talking about the fact that "God" is often specified, and confined to very specific criteria that are often farfetched in nature, which is what I was talking about. By "bearded man in the sky" I meant more "one of the Gods as portrayed by a specific religion.

Like there's the God who created the world in 7 days 3000 years ago and once wiped out the human race, leaving a small family to repopulate. Or the God who allowed a small bit of oil to burn 7x longer than it should have. Or the God who sent golden tablets down for a white settler to read and disperse. (And then the God who did whatever Scientology says happened...)

What I'm saying more is that those particular Gods are easy to single out and disprove with something as simple as "Well these here fossil records are millions of years old..." I get symbolism, but it seems people like to look at the symbolism as a criteria for existence rather than the idea the symbol represents.

Ah, my misunderstanding. Also, this is just a nitpicky thing, and really might not make a whole lot of difference to the majority that disagree, but the people who take the 7 days thing bodaciously tend to go by an age of more like 6000 years for the earth.

Fun fact: Scientology has no deity

Tales wrote:What about when science conflicts the Bible, i.e. that dinosaurs did exist (while some Christians would disagree) or that the Earth is billions of years old and not only a few thousand?

Backstory: I was raised in a very strict Christian sect and while I still believe in God I have a lot of issue with some of the things the churches teach. so basically I kinda don't like religion, but I believe in God. I find it hard to believe that THIS EVERYTHING just...happened. But I believe it was made then left to evolve on its own; there's no way I could reject science that's staring me right in the face. Also religious people are massive cunts when it comes to lgbtq issues and they make me aaaaangry.

Anyway. Once upon a time we had an evangelist at my parents' church that was a wonderful speaker and teacher but then he gave a talk on dinosaurs and he presented it as like...so the bible says earth was made in 7 days but then later in the bible it talks about how an hour is a like a second to god and a second like a million years (so basically time doesn't apply and you should take any divine dates with a grain of salt,) so theoretically those 7 days could have been 7 billion years which would allow the dinosaurs to do their dinosaur thing before the humans got there. it kinda makes sense as the bible said the light came first (big bang?) then the earth, then water/air (and thus pangaea,) plants, then fish, then land animals, then birds, then man.

One thing I hate about Christian "science" is how they try to shoehorn in the objectively wrong data in the Bible so it'll fit with modern theories, such as the 7 Days thing. "Oh, its metaphor. Except for this. And this. And no mixed fabrics."

I don't see the problem.
Better to accept scientific discoveries than to remain ignorant because they once read this one book.

as long as they don't just blatantly go nope science doesn't exist (yes! i know these people! they make me want to punch babies,) i don't care if they alter the bible. not like it hasn't been altered either over time and is full of contradictions. i couldn't take the dinosaur guy seriously after that personally haha though it could be a valid way to explain it to someone who believes that if it isn't in the bible it isn't true!!1 and have them not be so stupid about science.

i loved going on field trips with this one family to the museum because they'd try to explain to their kids how evolution was wrong and the kid just ended up being super confused because there was so much evidence otherwise haha. i love smashing that galapagos finch study in people's faces when they do the whole "WHY AREN'T WE STILL EVOLVING THEN" spiel.

also it bothers me when people think things in the old testament are law. 1. if you ain't a jew none of it applies to you anyway so go ahead and wear mixed fabrics and 2. it's a HISTORY BOOK not a law book good lord stop quoting it like the way i should live my life.

What is even the deal with mixed fabrics?

Dire wrote:I don't see the problem.
Better to accept scientific discoveries than to remain ignorant because they once read this one book.

Theyre not accepting it until the evidence is so overwhelming it becomes a PR problem for them, and even then they go "Oh, isnt Gods design amazing, even though we completely ignored it before".

Need Runes4 wrote:What is even the deal with mixed fabrics?

some verse in the bible forbidding jews to wear fabrics made of multiple materials i don't even remember why? like some rules make sense (don't eat pork, don't eat anything that scavenges off the bottom of the ocean,) because humans were stupid creatures and those rules made sure they didn't kill themselves, but i've never understood the fabric one. it doesn't seem to have a purpose unless ancient jews were susceptible to allergies of mixed materials o___O


edit: the law shows up in two verses, one in Deuteronomy and one in Leviticus (both law books for ancient jews,) and they only prevent someone from wearing a mix of linen and wool, but other combinations are fine. it's theorized this was a way to stand apart from other tribes.

@ stranger: I don't think you're being particularly fair, there's a lot of different groups after all. Some of them are willing to accept change, some aren't. Good on the ones who accept change, I say.
Like I said earlier. Some people don't start out religious. So it's not a matter of 'I have to change my interpretation of the bible because of science'. Some people don't even like religion and believe in a higher power (like Shazza).

So I don't particularly agree on lumping all religious folk together.

Stranger, frankly at this point it sounds to me like you're just looking for an excuse to not like Christians.

That and making sweeping generalizations and invoking unfair stereotypes.

You can have personal grudges against organized religion and the human conditions and all that, but if the basis of your argument begins and ends with "All religious people think this and say this and believe this and I don't like or agree with is" you lose a lot of credibility and it's hard to take your anger seriously. Try being more level headed and cite specific examples of the things you want to talk about, rather than oversimplifying and generalizing a very diverse group of people (In this case any religious person, it seems. Particularly Christians)

WHats so hard to understand? Yes, Christians are VERY diverse, just like nearly every other religious group, but the belief stems from the same source, which has a ton of contradictory and outdated rules and ideas in it. Some belive it, some dont, but if its all from one source, what makes one interpretation less valid than any other? I have yet to have this explained to me, who decides what part of the Bible is true and what isnt? What is the metaphor and what is supposed to be taken at face value? Is it all up to the individual? Then how is the source material reliable at all? Where is the basis that the creation story corelates at all with what research has told us about the possible origin of the universe? Some take all the rules at face value, others pick and choose, but I dont understand how the book can be any sort of authority on ANYTHING if you can end up with hundreds of different conclusions.

I actually remember specifically explaining it to you
along with a few other people

And like several people have explained, the Bible is not the only set of books that have different conclusions depending on the people writing and reading them. Even history books will change depending on the bias of the person writing it, and the people who read it might come to an even more different conclusion.

It's impossible to have a book based on history, theology, or politics and NOT have multiple interpretations. Accusing the Bible or any other RELIGIOUS text of being the only books with multiple contradictions and interpretations is a very untrue statement.