I just can't wear the FULL christian suit as i can't find a way to explain those so i'll try this....

When i was young my grandmother was, and still is very religous, she didn't push it on us though but was always willing to talk about it if we asked. I always had an interest in science though, so i will try to answer these questions from a combination of those two beliefs and idea's.

Man's interpretation of god's word was tainted by man's imperfection. God is beyond time and space and has always been there and always will. Nothing created God as he always was. Time has no meaning when talking about him/her/it.

As aresult of the imperfection of man and being unable to correctly interpret god's word we let our ego reign and believed earth was created for us and therefore we were here first.

If i was christian with scientific interest i would say that god created the universe, our understanding of that so far is the big bang, which he/she/it made.

Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit were mans bad attempt to understand the perfection god was trying to express but in those ancient times that was the best description we could come up with.

How's that sound?

I can't empathize with that at all. Thank you for the explanation, but I can't empathize with it. Then another religion will say something else, they will swear blind they know best...

It's best just to live your life I think. The bible is a shit head, it contradicts itself. And when I'm told to go to Church on the day of rest, or a dog gets PMS because of a human eating the forbidden fruit... I can't get it.

I have one of the highest I.Q's around, and I can't begin to understand religion. Same with most intelligent people. Maybe we aren't intelligent, and it's a conspiracy, all a big conspiracy.

What about humans though? They believe humans were always around?

- I edited most of this post.

Main point at the end there phil is that pretty much every religion believes God created the world perfect and it was adams fault that it became as it is and you dont like it.

Nah, your prejudice and assumptions are amusing. I hope your religion tells you to burn in hell for that. I already said, I know nothing. So you can't claim I "don't like it".

The main point at the end, is they all contradict each other to an astounding level. If it's all bullshit except God creating the world, then you don't really need a religion at all.

Regardless, the bible says it's a sin to spout forth your beliefs, and Sunday is the day of rest. Church would be nothing more than a ticket to hell. I don't think the world is perfect, either.

I read your post before you deleted most of it. You said you didnt like it :-)

You probably misunderstood what I meant by that, do you have it in a tab, perhaps you can quote me?

I don't understand religious people. I've met very few who are happy. Most are "sinners". Using me as a weapon to beat Bryant and then implying it's good to use people... I can't imagine that behaviour is looked up to.

No i dont.

Words something to the effect of:
If there is a God out there and you really created the world you didnt do a very good job and i dont like it at all

I said I don't think the world is that great. Not that I don't like it at all, regardless. According to you, God made man. So, technically it's his fault if man stuffed it up. I like how you're selective in what you argue with, so you can't be proven wrong.

Neat trick, cherry picker :p.

No i was trying to avoid the argument altogether while still answering as much as i could. You are obviously sore at me over something and trying to pick an argument anyway, however.

Nah, you're assuming that I care. You insult my arrogance and you're implying that you're something more important than you are. You are just a bad clicker. I don't think I could ever be sore with you. Not after reading some of the shit you write lol. Example here.

Regarding looking for an argument... Religious debates are no challenge to me AT ALL. I claim I know nothing. There's no counter to that... You claim you know something, and you can't prove it. If one is to claim something, they should at least support their story with fact. You have not done that :).

Usually people in your situation will return and say something like "you haven't proven your theory to be correct" or "you haven't disproven me". That's not how debates work, especially while I am claiming to know nothing. However, I hope you won't actually reply with that.

You did get close there with:

The bible doesn't contradict itself. The bible is deep and is supposed to be interpreted in certain ways. If someone takes out certain parts of the bible, (even the New Testament), I am sure they can use it to support any statement including ones that contradict other passages.

Also there is a lot of misconceptions people have about the bible. A lot of minister's don't preach what the bible teaches.

I haven't really observed a correlation between a persons religious beliefs/disbeliefs and intelligence.

Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark -- is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem -- a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ's father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.

People usually say: "That is to be taken metaphorically." In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD -- which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...

"There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it doesn't say there was "a+b+little green martians." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e., only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.

"It has to be understood in context." I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set which is supposed to be taken as THE TRUTH when, if you add more to it, it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have gotten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown at you?

"There was just a copying/writing error." This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said. And that's right -- I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the Bible itself is wrong.

"That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.

"God works in mysterious ways." A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the Bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.

War or Peace?

E 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
R 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Who is the father of Joseph?

M 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
L 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?

2KI 8:26 22
2CH 22:2 42

What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?

M 27:28 scarlet
J 19:2 purple