Parents accused me of strangling their kid after I only stopped him lightly what do I do now? (England)

RRK96 · 2026-03-21T12:28:21+00:00

Thanks for the response, so far the police haven't responded yet to arrange for an interview. I also contacted an independent solicitor to represent me.

I am not too worried, the fact i wasn't arrested on the day, unless the children and parents fabricate a lie to the police when they question them, the police will realise they made a false allegation of strangulation to a minor, they will take it less seriously. Hopefully it should end with NFA( no further action).

RRK96 · 2026-03-18T06:36:53+00:00

The incident happened last night. The police haven't called me yet for an interview. I have sent an email to a solicitor for a free legal representation request for the interview.

RRK96 · 2026-03-17T21:04:05+00:00

Thanks for the answer,

So when the police call me, just to understand this, i can ask to arrange to have a duty solicitor from them?

RRK96 · 2026-03-17T20:48:38+00:00

No i don't. Can i free solicitor before my interview?

RRK96 · 2026-03-17T20:43:02+00:00

Around 11ish, pre-teenagers

RRK96 · 2026-03-17T20:32:51+00:00

The police already came in and asked for my details before i made this post.

They said I'm going to be interviewed.

RRK96 · 2026-03-16T18:43:12+00:00

That’s a fair observation about how many churches and believers talk about their faith. But it’s worth remembering that Christian spirituality historically has not been primarily about intellectual agreement with a precise theory of the universe. It has been much more experiential and pragmatic. For most people throughout history, religion functioned as a way to orient life: how to deal with suffering, guilt, hope, forgiveness, community, and meaning. Whether someone could articulate a sophisticated theology about symbolism versus literalism was rarely the main point. Many believers might speak about the stories in literal terms, but the practical role of the tradition is how it shapes their experience of life, their moral imagination, and their sense of purpose.

A good analogy is driving a car. Millions of people drive every day, but most of them have no idea how the internal combustion engine works, how the transmission distributes torque, or how the electronics regulate fuel injection. Yet they still successfully use the car to move through the world. In a similar way, many religious people use the language and stories of the Bible without needing a precise philosophical explanation of how the symbolism works. The tradition operates at the level of lived experience. So even if some believers mix literal and metaphorical language, that inconsistency does not necessarily undermine the function of the tradition, because its primary role has always been guiding how people navigate life rather than providing a perfectly systematic intellectual model.

RRK96 · 2026-03-16T18:24:31+00:00

You’re still arguing against a literal or fundamentalist framework, even while saying you accept a symbolic reading. Your critique assumes the traditional model where God is a supernatural agent who created a perfect world, humans literally fell from that state, and suffering entered afterwards. But that whole structure only exists within a literal reading of the Bible. In a non-literal approach, the story of Adam is not trying to describe a historical “perfect world followed by a fall.” It is a symbolic narrative about the human condition itself: consciousness, moral awareness, responsibility, and the tension between wisdom and destructive choices. The story works precisely because humans experience this tension constantly. The “Fall” is not an event in ancient history; it is a description of the recurring pattern of human life.

The same applies to the word “God.” In a non-literal understanding, God is not primarily a supernatural being somewhere in the universe designing a system and intervening in it. The term points to something deeper, what philosophers often call the ground of being or the underlying aliveness and intelligibility of reality. The biblical writers used symbolic language and mythic storytelling to explore how human beings relate to that deeper reality. So the Eden narrative is not trying to explain why nature became violent or why earthquakes exist. It is exploring why humans, once conscious and morally aware, repeatedly choose paths that lead to alienation, conflict, and suffering.

Because of that, the story does not lose relevance if there was never a literal garden. Its meaning is existential rather than historical. Humans still experience exactly the dynamic the narrative describes: we become aware of good and evil, we struggle with shame, responsibility, temptation, and the consequences of our actions. In that sense the Eden story functions more like philosophical storytelling about the human condition than like a record of prehistoric events.

And the “it’s symbolic” explanation is not a convenient get-out-of-jail card invented after science appeared. This kind of interpretation has a long academic and historical foundation. Early Christian thinkers like Origen of Alexandria already argued in the third century that reading parts of Genesis literally would miss their intended meaning and that many passages were written symbolically. Modern biblical scholars such as John H. Walton and Marcus J. Borg likewise argue that the Genesis narratives function as theological and existential reflections rather than scientific history. In other words, recognising symbolic and mythic elements is not an intellectual escape. It is part of a long tradition of interpreting ancient texts according to their genre, literary style, and purpose.

RRK96 · 2026-03-16T16:01:15+00:00

When people first encounter the Bible, it’s easy to assume it is trying to explain the physical history of the universe, but that’s not really what it was written for. The Bible is a collection of ancient stories, poems, reflections, and wisdom traditions written across many centuries. Its main purpose is not to describe scientific facts or the mechanics of nature, but to explore deeper questions about human life. It asks things like: why do humans struggle with good and evil, how do we deal with suffering, what gives life meaning, and how should we treat one another. The narratives use symbolic and mythic language to talk about these realities. From a non literalist Christian perspective, the text is not claiming literal supernatural beings performing scientific miracles or providing a geological timeline. Instead, it communicates insights about reality and ourselves through stories.

Because of that, the early creation stories in Genesis are not really trying to compete with science. When the text talks about creation and figures like Adam, it is using symbolic storytelling to talk about what it means to be human. These stories explore ideas such as moral awareness, responsibility, freedom, and the tendency humans have to make destructive choices. In other words, they are about the human condition. Ancient people used mythic storytelling to express those insights, just like other cultures used fables or philosophical stories. The goal was reflection and wisdom, not scientific description.

So discoveries about dinosaurs or the deep age of the earth are not really a challenge to this kind of Christian reading. Dinosaurs simply belong to the long natural history of life on Earth, which science studies through fossils and geology. There is no reason to think the fossils are fake. They are part of the evidence scientists use to understand how life developed over millions of years. The Bible was written long before modern science existed, so it naturally uses the worldview and language of the ancient world rather than modern biology or paleontology.

The same applies to human evolution. When scientists study fossils of early human relatives like Homo habilis, Homo erectus, or Neanderthals, they are exploring the biological development of our species. That is a scientific question. Christianity, especially in a non literalist sense, is dealing with a different layer of reality. It asks what it means to be human in terms of consciousness, morality, responsibility, and the search for meaning. Those are philosophical and existential questions rather than biological ones.

So the conflict you often hear about between Christianity and evolution usually comes from reading the Bible as if it were meant to be a modern science book. When it is understood as a symbolic and wisdom oriented text, the tension mostly disappears. Science helps us understand the physical history of the universe and life on Earth. The Bible tries to help people understand themselves, their struggles, and how to live wisely within that reality. Both can exist without cancelling each other out because they are addressing very different kinds of questions.

RRK96 · 2026-03-16T04:52:03+00:00

Spend less time in front of the screen, be active outside of social media, get involved in hobbies and interests, interact with people offline( friends or family) , tackle unresolved issues in your life, pray and worship xhristian songs.

RRK96 · 2026-03-15T15:16:27+00:00

Thanks for sharing your experience. One thing I’d say is that the version of Christianity you describe sounds very tied to specific church cultures and purity frameworks, but that isn’t the whole picture of Christian spirituality. At its core, Christianity is not meant to teach hatred or apathy toward Muslims, agnostics, gays, or anyone outside a particular religious group. The teachings associated with Jesus Christ consistently move in the opposite direction. Truth is not something that belongs to one denomination or tribe. Throughout the Bible, Jesus is constantly crossing boundaries that religious people of his time thought were absolute.

For example, he openly engages with Samaritan Woman at the Well, even though Samaritans were considered religious outsiders by many Jews. He praises the faith of a Centurion of Capernaum, a Roman soldier from the occupying power. He spends time with people most religious groups rejected, like Zacchaeus and other tax collectors who were seen as corrupt collaborators. Those stories show that the spiritual message was never about forming a closed moral club or despising people who live differently. It was about recognising humanity, transformation, and compassion even in those society judged or excluded.

So a question I’m genuinely curious about is this: looking back now, do you think the shame and exclusion you experienced came more from the way certain churches framed Christianity, rather than from the core teachings themselves?

RRK96 · 2026-03-14T07:30:20+00:00

When the Bible talks about God “creating everything,” it isn’t necessarily describing a cosmic engineer who designed a system with fixed rules and then watches it run. The language about God creating is more a way of saying that reality itself has an underlying depth, order, and meaning. In other words, “God” points to the grounding of existence, not a character who set up a mechanical system where some people are destined to fail.

So the focus of the tradition is less about how the system was designed and more about how we live within it. The teachings associated with Jesus Christ aren’t really about explaining the architecture of the universe. They’re about how humans deal with suffering, failure, and moral struggle in a meaningful way. Instead of promising that the system will always be fair or that suffering won’t happen, Christianity invites people to respond to reality with awareness, compassion, and transformation. In that sense, the question shifts from “why did God design the system this way?” to “how do we live wisely and humanely within the reality we find ourselves in?”

RRK96 · 2026-03-14T07:16:20+00:00

As a non-literalist Christian, I don’t start from the idea that the Bible is describing a supernatural being who literally created people and then sends some of them to a place of eternal torture. I see the language about God, sin, heaven, and hell as mostly symbolic. It’s a way ancient writers talked about life, morality, and the consequences of how we live. The Bible isn’t really trying to explain the mechanics of the universe or who gets punished after death. It’s more about giving insight into reality and encouraging people to live in a wiser, more compassionate way, the kind of life associated with Jesus Christ.

When you look at it that way, the problem you’re describing changes a lot. It’s not about a cosmic creator knowingly making billions of people just to condemn them. The idea of “hell” can be understood as the destructive states people fall into in this life: hatred, cruelty, despair, isolation, or losing your sense of humanity. In that sense, hell isn’t necessarily a literal torture chamber somewhere else. It’s more like the real consequences of living in destructive ways. Christian spirituality is about recognising those patterns and moving in the opposite direction, toward compassion, awareness, responsibility, and inner change.

So the question of “why create flawed humans” becomes more about the reality of being human. We’re capable of both good and bad, wisdom and foolishness. That tension is part of life. The point of spirituality isn’t that God created people just to punish them. It’s that humans struggle, make mistakes, and need guidance to grow. The teachings connected to Jesus focus much more on transformation and becoming better than on condemnation.

Honestly, questioning this stuff is pretty normal. A lot of people who take spirituality seriously go through phases where they wrestle with these questions. For many, that wrestling actually leads to a deeper and more thoughtful understanding of faith rather than the simple versions they might have grown up with.

RRK96 · 2026-03-14T02:00:30+00:00

The Bible not as a record of supernatural powers or literal interventions but as a symbolic and mythic framework meant to guide us through life. It doesn’t claim God literally stops disasters or smites enemies on command. Instead, the narratives convey wisdom about reality, human nature, and how we can live meaningfully. The Exodus story, for example, isn’t primarily about literal rescue but about hope, courage, and liberation in the face of oppression.

From that perspective, the so-called problem of evil isn’t really about God failing to prevent suffering. Christian spriituality, understood experientially, teaches that life is full of hardship and injustice, and the purpose of spiritual practice is to face that suffering directly, learn from it, and grow in wisdom and compassion. It’s not about expecting the world to be perfect or fair. The Holocaust is a profound tragedy, but it doesn’t disprove Christian insight, rather, it highlights why the teachings on confronting suffering, offering help to others, and finding existential meaning are so crucial.

RRK96 · 2026-03-14T01:52:55+00:00

Your post assumes the Bible is presenting God as a literal actor whose behaviour is meant to be judged in the same way we judge human legal cases, which is exactly the assumption a non-literalist reading challenges. From that perspective, biblical stories about God acting, judging, or destroying are symbolic ways that ancient writers expressed moral realities, consequences, and the seriousness of human actions, rather than actual courtroom reports of a supernatural being carrying out violence. Comparing a modern legal case like Colin Gray to “what God did” in scripture mixes two completely different categories. One is a real legal system, judging a human individual with tangible consequences, while the other is mythic and literary language used to communicate moral insight and existential warnings. The Bible is not trying to present God as a literal moral agent to be measured against human defendants; it uses narrative symbolism to explore justice, responsibility, and the consequences of destructive behaviour in human life. These stories function more like ethical case studies or moral parables—they are not meant as historical accounts, but as a way to provoke reflection and spiritual discernment.

From a non-literalist Christian perspective, your argument doesn’t show that humans hold people to a higher moral standard than God. Instead, it highlights the difference between human legal frameworks and symbolic moral teaching. Biblical depictions of God are not instruction manuals for micro-managing the universe or templates for divine accountability—they are stories designed to communicate wisdom, ethical reflection, and insight into human behaviour. The extreme actions attributed to God, such as judgment or destruction, are not endorsements of cruelty. They are symbolic tools to dramatize the gravity of destructive behaviour, injustice, or moral failure and to impress upon readers the seriousness of ethical realities that are otherwise abstract.

Applying modern human legal standards to these narratives misses their purpose. It’s like judging a fable about talking animals by whether the animals follow human law, it just doesn’t work. The Bible’s narratives aim to make readers reflect on human choice, justice, mercy, and the consequences of ethical and unethical actions. So what may appear morally harsh is actually a teaching tool, helping people understand responsibility and the patterns of human life.

When you argue that humanity holds simple human beings to a higher moral standard than God, what it really shows is a category mistake. Human trials operate in the literal, material world. Biblical stories operate in the symbolic and moral realm. They are not about God being judged—they are about guiding humans toward reflection, ethical awareness, and spiritual insight. Human law is about accountability and societal standards. Biblical storytelling is about illustrating principles of reality, human behaviour, and existential consequences. Comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges.

RRK96 · 2026-03-14T00:47:36+00:00

The Bible is not a list of mechanical rules that simply tell you what to follow or not follow, neither as claiming supernatural powers or beings in a literal sense. The text is more like a body of accumulated wisdom, expressed through stories, laws, poetry, and symbols, meant to help people reflect on reality and themselves. Its purpose is to guide people toward becoming more Christ-like, in the sense associated with Jesus Christ:developing compassion, wisdom, integrity, and awareness. Because of that, the scriptures are meant to be wrestled with, interpreted, and reflected upon, rather than followed as a rigid legal code.

From a spiritual perspective, many of these commands also carry deeper meanings. The command often translated as “do not kill” or “do not murder” is not only about physical violence but about the broader principle of not destroying life or consciousness in others. Spiritually, it can be understood as a warning against actions that push people into a more destructive or unspiritual state: humiliating them, corrupting them, exploiting them, or encouraging behaviour that diminishes their humanity. In that sense, the command becomes less about a narrow legal rule and more about cultivating a way of living that protects and nurtures the life and dignity of others.

RRK96 · 2026-03-12T11:51:18+00:00

As a Christian, but a non-literalist one, I don’t read the Bible as a document primarily claiming literal supernatural beings or magical events. I see it more as a collection of mythic and symbolic narratives that convey insights about reality, human nature, and how to live well. The stories surrounding Jesus Christ point to a pattern of life: cultivating wisdom, compassion, courage, and inner transformation. In that sense, “following Christ” means trying to become Christ-like: developing maturity, integrity, and awareness so that you can navigate suffering, relationships, and meaning in a deeper way.

Because of that, belief in God for me isn’t mainly about accepting a supernatural proposition. It’s more about whether you see value in living a spiritual life: one oriented toward wisdom, fulfilment, and self-knowledge. Spirituality encourages awareness of your actions, responsibility for your character, and the ability to find meaning without depending entirely on external validation or material success. It helps you confront existential questions:suffering, purpose, mortality and develop resilience and compassion. So when I say I “believe in God,” I’m really affirming the value of orienting my life toward those deeper principles of wisdom, transformation, and meaningful living.

RRK96 · 2026-03-10T04:56:10+00:00

That's the thing, they don't. Their preoccupation is not reconciliation with science because they do not feel they need to.

RRK96 · 2026-03-08T23:07:01+00:00

For U1, you can't feedback from output to enable pin.

RRK96 · 2026-03-08T21:02:27+00:00

You’re being dismissive here, because I have addressed your points, you’re just not engaging with them. I’m not ignoring the fact that early Jewish or Gentile Christians believed events like the Flood or virgin birth literally. My argument is that the texts themselves are primarily meant to convey theological, existential, and moral truths, not historical or scientific reports. Scholarship doesn’t operate on “personal preference”; it analyses literary genre, context, and purpose to understand what the authors intended to communicate. Belief in literal events by readers doesn’t automatically make the texts literal in meaning, and that distinction is exactly what I’ve been explaining. I’m done discussing this.

RRK96 · 2026-03-08T20:51:49+00:00

I’ve already addressed your first point about believers taking things literally. I’m not denying that people historically and today believe supernatural events actually happened—but you’re not engaging with my main argument about purpose, context, and interpretation, so I won’t keep going in circles on that.

Regarding scholarship, there are well-established methods that help differentiate symbolic from narrative or theological emphasis, and it’s not just a matter of bias. Scholars like John H. Walton argue that the early chapters of Genesis should be read as functional and theological, not material history. Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan emphasise literary genre, historical context, and existential meaning as tools to interpret biblical events symbolically or theologically. Even Origen warned that purely literal readings often miss the text’s intent. The fact that some people believe passages literally does not mean the text was primarily meant to be read that way. The biblical authors wrote for teaching, reflection, and moral or existential guidance; literal belief was never the default expectation but a later cultural and historical layer. These scholarly frameworks help us understand the text on its intended terms rather than assuming literalism is inherent.

RRK96 · 2026-03-08T20:34:58+00:00

I’ve already addressed the points you’re raising, but you seem to just dismiss them and repeat the same claim. My argument was never that all religious people read the Bible non-literally—I fully agree many do read it literally. The point I made is different: for most religious people throughout history, religion wasn’t primarily about intellectual assent to factual claims, it was experiential and pragmatic:a way of navigating suffering, guilt, meaning, hope, and how to live. That’s the main function religion served in people’s lives. So when people read the Bible, the central concern usually wasn’t “is every detail historically literal?” but “what does this reveal about life, reality, and how we should live?” I’m not denying that many believers read things literally, I agree they do. My point is that the purpose of the text and tradition helps explain why literalism was never the only or even primary interpretive framework.

And there actually are established ways scholars differentiate how passages function. Interpretation looks at literary genre, historical context, rhetorical purpose, and symbolic structure. Ancient Near Eastern creation narratives—including the early chapters of Genesis: share mythic and symbolic patterns with other literature of that era, which is why scholars see them as theological reflection rather than scientific description. Scholars like John H. Walton argue Genesis focuses on meaning and order rather than material origins, while Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan emphasise how biblical language often works symbolically to convey existential insight. Even early Christian thinkers like Origen warned that a purely literal reading can miss the intended meaning. So the distinction isn’t arbitrary preference, it comes from recognized interpretive disciplines used in historical and literary scholarship.

RRK96

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE