[ramien123]

Yes. He knew that his Son would be killed by those whom he had been sent to help, but God sent him anyway because that is what humanity needed.

[fritterdonut]

"Big Bang was the act of God," haven't heard that one before.
I believe in science and not at all religious.
What I don't get is the story of Adam & Eve, being banished from the Garden.
Yet this God still accepts us into "Heaven"?

As a Protestant, I believe that because Jesus died to forgive us of all sin, everyone is forgiven and enters heaven, including people who have denied God or have not been baptised.

As for Adam and Eve, I personally think that the story of Eden is one of those parts of the Old testament that should be taken as a parable or an example, rather than an actual event.

[ramien123]

The story of Eden is the fall of humanity from the grace of God, which can either be seen as an explanation for the hardships and suffering humans go through with an all loving, all knowing God, or a cautionary tale about disobeying the commands of God.

What I do know about it is that it almost completely formed the perception of women as being "lesser" to man.

[FlannyFlan]

question:

Whya re adam and eve depicted with belly buttons, when they were created by "gods" hand? Cause if they really were there would be no need for bellybuttons considering they were not born from a womb.

Also, if Adam and Eve were truely the first people on earth.. why has our genetic gene pool not died out yet?

[ramien123]

And there lies the problem with the Genesis theory of creation.

[Cheez99]

question:

Whya re adam and eve depicted with belly buttons, when they were created by "gods" hand? Cause if they really were there would be no need for bellybuttons considering they were not born from a womb.

Also, if Adam and Eve were truely the first people on earth.. why has our genetic gene pool not died out yet?

I was told that Adam and Eve weren't the only humans, just the first ones that were in the Garden. I haven't actually read Genesis however. As for the bellybutton thing...maybe the renaissance artists just didn't think about it when they made the paintings?

[Kress91]

Jews of that era generally didn't have long hair, yet modern painting of Christ depict him with such.

Just to bolster Cheez's statement on the arts not being an accurate portrayal.

[ramien123]

Even more fun, Jesus was never described in any of his teachings, or works written by his disciples. So nobody has any idea what he looked like.

Although, people can kind of guess what he might have looked like based on his location as seen here:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... cs/1282186

[mitch1423]

While there is way too much to reply to if I wanted to post my opinion on everything, my favorite argument by Christians is that some parts of the Bible are not supposed to be interpreted literally. Where is the guide for which parts of the Bible are and are not supposed to be interpreted literally?

[FaeynHeart]

Even more fun, Jesus was never described in any of his teachings, or works written by his disciples. So nobody has any idea what he looked like.

Although, people can kind of guess what he might have looked like based on his location as seen here:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... cs/1282186

However, in Isaiah 53:2:

He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

EDIT: Flanny brought up an interesting point. While I don't know the exact answer, I would point out that Leviticus 18 is the instance where God points out not to have sexual relations with close members of your family. Before that point I can only assume that it was okay to marry within your close family. Therefore, when you look at inbreeding (as it applies to humans from a scientific perspective), it may have been different until the point in Leviticus.