Ok now I understand your argument better, and I agree with it. You're saying that the bible stories were all made up in order to teach moral principles. That makes sense. 

But that wasn't what I was asking for. Whenever a literal interpretation of the bible disproves christianity, apologists will claim that *that* specific passage was never intended as literal. But how do we know which parts of the bible were intended as literal, and which parts were merely stories to illustrate a moral point? What if Jesus' ressurrection on the cross wasn't meant to be literal, but was just to illustrate a moral point? That would undermine all of Christianity. There needs to be a clear cut set of rules for determining which parts of the bible were meant as allegory, and which parts were meant as literal. Otherwise a Christian can just convieniently claim that *that* passage wasn't meant as literal, and an Athiest can claim that Jesus' whole life story wasn't meant as literal. It gets us nowhere. 

Edit: Also, maybe you missed it, but I offered up a dillema argument in respose to your claim that objective morality can't exist without God. I'd really like to see your response to that, because the OP asked whether or not it mattered if God existed. My dillema argument ended with the conclusion that Objective Morality cannot exist whether or not God exists. And that is a pretty good and interesting answer to OP's question. 

I don't believe Paul ever mentions these conversations, in documentation.  Nor am I aware of any firsthand account.  I think that it is mentioned that they meet each other in the book of acts, which again places us about 50 years from the ressurection, and a number of years after any meetings would have occured.  

Even assuming we take the claims at face value and the conversations happened, and that the accounts of James and Paul's conversations are accurate, that in no way validates anything.  Religious leaders have no special authority or credibility, and, to my knowledge, we have no firsthand accounts from either Peter or James.

you determine what means what with the scientific method, testing to see what works over and over again, but the problem with that is that you first have to understand what the intention of the original passage was, if you want to do a comparison and i think a lot of that information has been lost or at least that its not taught widely

"What if Jesus' ressurrection on the cross wasn't meant to be literal, but was just to illustrate a moral point? That would undermine all of Christianity."

i do think that was metaphorical and yes it would undermine christianity because christianity to a large extent has lost its way, its placed significance on the wrong things

then there's the fact that the origins of the bible and how its been altered have to be taken into consideration

Are you a Christian, a Deist, or an Atheist? If you're a Christian you should run for office, because that would make you exactly the kind of person we need right now. Have you read Stealing Jesus? 

i'm agnostic and not religious

Ever tought laws might differ wrong from right for humans on earth instead of God. Or an imaginary being if he doesn't exist. Life itself isn't pointless without a supreme being and humans should be selfconsious enough to differ right from wrong. It doesn't take a genius to see that raping and killing people is bad for society whether god agrees or not.

Ah ok this is making more sense now. You previously said that Objective Morality cannot exist without God. Does this mean that you are also agnostic towards Objective Morality? 

But the probem is is that is your interpretation there is no real point in me arguing with you about it because you already made up your mind and are looking for reasons to justify your belief.  All people all like including me that It is a waste of time, so lets talk about something more interesting.  Here is a comment I posted before if you can actualy give some meaningful answers you might be worth talking to.

Scientifically speaking we are just a configuration of atoms and atoms don't care what configuration they are in so scientifically morality doesn't matter and it only matters to yourself. Since we could easily imagine a different configuration of atoms that had a completely different morality technically morality is completely arbitrary. You can't even appeal to evolution and Biology because atoms existed before DNA and atom didn't care before whether they would be arranged in a DNA and that the pattern would extended and they won't care after when DNA ceases to exist.

Only people care and people are their own unique configurations of atoms so if your an atheist it is pointless to wonder whether God existence is important or to even ask for proof of Gods existence because you can't even proof that you exist. 

Say you were cut in half vertically and almost instantaneously through extremely advanced technology each half was fixed to regenerate their missing halves. Now which one is you? Using this one example it becomes clear that there is no logical or scientific construction that can prove your existence apart from the configuration of your atoms. So there could be a million copies of you all exactly the same and there would be no way for you to tell the difference. 

So you can't even prove your own existence as a individual entity let alone the existence of God there are only atoms that will eventually ease to exist. One atom isn't any more important than any other. So as long as you who are mere configurations of atoms, which aren't any important then each individual atoms, continue to exist; don't fool yourself that you know anything. If you did know anything it would just be an accident based on the random motion of atoms based on the pointless unpredictable reality of quantum mechanics, so you can't actually prove anything because there is no fundamental reality that can distinguished between configurations of atoms that can know truth and those that don't. Because after all what reason is there that everything that you know could have been different, the whole universe could have been different.

Of course that is unless you reject the fundamental premise that there is nothing but atoms and energy. But then what would that be. If you are still reading this and are an atheist ask yourself why would you reply? Why does anything matter. Why would one configuration of atoms that has no control of its own configuration's past and consequently its future, attempt to try and change the configuration of another set of atoms when you can't prove that one configuration is more important than another? 

i'm not agnostic towards objective morality i think for certain that some practices over others are best for people and i think everyone thinks that way too, that is something seperate from not being able to verify if a god actually exists

i see god as being a vehicle useful for the distribution of certain ideas across as wide a portion of the population as possible, but i personally cannot verify the existance of a god

because its one thing to have observed what practices are best for people but its another entirely to communicate it to people of varying levels of capacity for comprehension and this obviously presents a great challenge and i think stories associating pracitices with god was the solution they came to in the past 

You resorted to the "God of the Gaps" fallacy again, which also makes it an ad nauseaum fallacy. Repeating the same claim isn't going to help your argument. Also, 97% of matter being invisible proving that the supernatural exists is also another "God of the Gaps" fallacy because you don't provide the link nor have you proved the causality.

Claiming that we cannot have objective reality without the concept of god is also a Proof by Assertion fallacy considering that you have provided no direct evidence that supports your claim and again, nor have you proven the causality. Ultimately, your claims are solely reliant on the "God of the Gaps", Proof by Assertion, and ad nauseaum fallacies (and in that order, too). You first make a "God of the Gaps" fallacy and attempt to support it with unproven assertions (Proof by Assertion) without fulfilling your burden of proof (which falls on the person making the positive claim), and then when someone points out at the flaws of your argument, you go through that cycle again (ad nauseaum). The pattern is highly predictable.