Im always confused by the doctrine of 'what it says in the bible is the word of God, therefore it is absolutely true' when so many versions exist - Dom.There aren't really. Are you talking about the different translations or the books that aren't generally accepted by the majority of christians?The different translations just represent different attempts to accurately translate the bible. I suppose most protestant churches don't accept the deutrocanonical books of the bible and then there are the Apocrypha which are not accepted as being inspired by God and generally thought to be the works of heretics.

Why, Why Why. You are asking us to speculate on the reasons why a being of unlimited intellect did something. But look at it this way, we tell kids every day that the sun rises in the east and goes down in the west. It isn't true though. Why do we do it? Are we liars? Is it a myth?As for 2 accounts of creation, they aren't really. I can explain if you state the specifics of your case. The other points, to explain would take a while.

NiallQuote: we tell kids every day that the sun rises in the east and goes down in the west. It isn't true though."It is the east; and Juliet is the Sun. Arise, fair sun, and kill the pale envious moon!" Since Einstein explained that all motion is relative, the Earth turning on its axis and the sun rising in the East are both equally valid ways of describing the perceived phenomenon. My kid knows more about planetary motion than I do, though. Science is neither a philosophy nor a belief system. It is a combination of mental operations that has become increasingly the habit of educated peoples, a culture of illuminations hit upon by a fortunate turn of history that yielded the most effective way of learning about the real world ever conceived. E.O.Wilson

"Why, Why Why. You are asking us to speculate on the reasons why a being of unlimited intellect did something."I'm sorry, but this is a cop out. Letting anyone get away with a statement like this absolves them from having to actually answer anything. All this does is remove the matter from rational discourse.Could we perhaps at least agree that God's statements and actions, as popularly represented in the Bible, often appear quite irrational to us? However, if the ultimate answer to any of the more difficult questions is along the lines of "well, God is so awesome that how can we hope to understand His motives" there is little point in continuing.

I have to agree with Steve's point here if we accept God a priori what the hell have we got to talk about.

Yup, I know thats what it sounds like. But really, what were you expecting? I can speculate as to his motives, but I can't really expect to be able to answer the question anymore than a toddler can expect to understand why they are getting a shot. That is the bottom line.However, it is my belief, and the belief of the majority of christians I have known, that the story of creation is written in a style that should not be interperated in the literal way that you seem to assume christians do.As far back as St. Augustine (354-430) and further still, bible scholars have said that the language of Genisis is poetic and theological and should NOT be interpeted literally. According to christianity, man is made of both body and soul. Of course science cannot detect 'souls'.Perhaps, it tells the story of the creation of man's soul?AS to why God would give an allegory as opposed to a factual account, you have to consider what the prupose of Genesis is. It tells us WHY we are here, rather than how we got here. Genesis is not even considered to be the complete account of creation by christians for instance check out John 1:1-3 and Job 38:4, 6-7 if you want specifics. Anyway, so you know what I meant first time round:For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.' Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength. - 1 Corinthians 1:18-25

NaillQuote:Of course science cannot detect 'souls'Why not? Science is neither a philosophy nor a belief system. It is a combination of mental operations that has become increasingly the habit of educated peoples, a culture of illuminations hit upon by a fortunate turn of history that yielded the most effective way of learning about the real world ever conceived. E.O.Wilson

Because it is not physical.

NialQuote:However, it is my belief, and the belief of the majority of christians I have known, that the story of creation is written in a style that should not be interperated in the literal way that you seem to assume christians do.Ok, fine. We don't have to accept the creation story literally. Now that we have established that some of the stories in the Bible didn't really happen as written, you should have no problem considering my next statement. I say we should not take literally the story told in the Bible of Jesus being born of an immaculate conception. I also say we should not take literally the story about Jesus rising from the dead. Sound cool?Who is to decide which stories should be taken literally and which should be considered embellishment? If you can identify several incidents where the Bible tells fictitious stories, why would you consider any of the Bible to be of historical significance? It seems far more rational to conclude that the entire Bible should be eyed with scrutiny. Why does this make sense for me and not for Christians? Could it be that Christians want to believe reeeaaally bad and are more than willing to perform mental gymnastics in order to believe?So why are we to not take the creation story literally...and then take the story about Jesus rising from the dead literally? Please explain.On souls...You said science cannot detect them because they are not physical. Then how do you detect them? What sensory organs did you employ when you first became aware that souls exist. Explain in detail.Chris "When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,for there you have been, and there you will always want to be."

When I went to Dawkin's lecture last year he said something that gave me one of those "WOW" moments. He said that the Christian story that says that God sent his only Son to be tortured and murdered on the cross was grossly repugnant. I had never thought of it in that way before, and of course he was right. How could any loving father do that to his son?As for the Judao/Christian origin myth - if this had been in the least bit plausible I would probably be a believer today - the fact is it isn't. I like the Ancient Egyptian one that says that the universe is the product of God's masturbation to be far more interesting.