Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy
youre confusing issues and not understanding my posts.
Not at all. Your arguments are well understood but tangential to my point so I haven't responded to them. My correction was very specific...see below.

now there are those who say that chrisitanity does not rely upon biblical infallibility. well good for them since when believing that they create their own religion and cannot call it christianity. people who believe this type of thing should study the history of chrisitanity, or actually the history of judaism.
"There are those" = the majority of Christianity, and Judaism as well, now that you bring it up. It's absolutely true that this wasn't always the case though. As recently as pre-WWII, most denominations were strictly Creationist. But that is where Christianity has grown to, so to speak, so is very representative of the majority of the Christian population today. This is my point, that your earlier statement "our understanding of the christian god comes from a literal interpretation of the bible and other like scriptures" is not reflective of the attitudes of the entire Christian population. Of course Theistic Evolution has no factual merit. I'm not debating that.

I suppose one could say that to abandon earlier beliefs is to alter the very fundamentals of a religion. I have no interest in defending that or any Christian position. As I've said, I'm not a practicing Christian so I'm riding a fine line between holding my personal beliefs and communicating my understanding of Christian doctrine. Still, I find it somewhat admirable that a denomination can look at the scientific evidence and admit it to be true despite its history. That's at least better than a stubborn refusal to accept scientific fact like the Fundamentalist movement is doing. I suppose if science can continue to collect new evidence and create new theories as a result, religion needs to be allowed to do the same.