My God is still free of human influence which tends to always distort the true meaning of God.
No it isn't unless you are not human.
I do not worship myself. I don't know how you get this out of reading what I typed. Your religion makes God in your image,
My religion does not make God in humanity's image. God is God, and my religion preserves the truth about God. By assembling your own beliefs about God from various sources, that God will necessarily conform to what you believe. Therefore, you are making God in your image. You may not see it, but you are doing just that.
I don't worship God, I honor him for being so great and giving me this gift of life.
That's interesting because you said "I worship the God of all religions..."
My God has nothing to do with society. No not a lot think that God is nature but it is what everyone in the end will return to after we die which makes my God the same God as all the religions of the world. You just think my belief is faulty because it goes beyond what you want to believe.
You can't claim that your God has nothing to do with society unless you were raised in a cave with no outside influence. I believe your belief is faulty because it makes no sense whatsoever. It is based on fallacies, and illogical assumptions. The fact that it goes beyond what I believe is incidental.
You follow the Bible, its a void filler written by the hands of men.
I disagree. Although the Bible was written by men, I believe it was written by men who had seen and heard the truth. I believe that what they have written is more than just a bunch of made up stories.
When did I say science advanced less and less?
"Notice as science advances less and less things religion has to jump on and say its God." -- You. I think some punctuation and grammar may need to be adjusted as that sentence made no sense to me, and still doesn't
I said the more science advances the less things religion has to say is shall we say, a miracle.
I don't care if what might be considered a miracle can be scientifically explained. That does not mean there are no miracles.
My belief is not a priori because it requires no prior knowledge, just life. Society often times barks up the wrong tree, Religion was created by society by barking up the wrong tree, therefore religion is barking up the wrong tree.
I guarantee you that you have made a priori assumptions, assumptions that are necessary to your argument, you just don't see them. Every single person reading what you write can see them, but you can't. You are the one barking up the wrong tree.
Very well, but I still say God is everything that is life and this universe is alive.
I believe that God is the source of all life, but all living things are not God.
Haven't you noticed men who wrote in that time often always used symbolic language and never ment it to be taken literal.
Its called mythology.
often always? what does that mean? men in Biblical times used symbolism because it says more than mere words can. But they also wrote things that are literal.
They use natural phenomenon and personify these phenomenon with names and add moral stories to them.
That is what you are claiming, but again, I believe you are wrong, and you have not supported your case.
When you take it literal you miss the fact that the conflict is internal not external. You think when the Bible tells us to control a snake it literally means that?
It means take hold of your emotions and thoughts, don't let them get the better of you. You completely miss this if you read it literal.
Where does the Bible tell us to control a snake? You are obviously not aware of what is and isn't in the Bible, nor do you know anything about Orthodox Theology. We dwell at great length on the symbolic meaning of stories. Your assertion is patently false. Perhaps if you educated yourself on what we actually believe you would at least stop making the same incorrect statements.
If your Church does not teach a literalistic version of the Bible then it would be correct for me to say that you don't believe a man named Jesus ever walked on this Earth, no?
Wrong. It is a historical fact that a man named Jesus did walk the earth. We know what is symbolic and what is history. The Church which wrote the Bible has passed this information along to the present day.
That reminds me of what Frank Schaeffer said he heard a Protestant say once: "If the KJV was good enough for Christ and the Apostles, it's good enough for me." 
