Quote:
Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl
I can't articulate it, but I don't see a contradiction between belief and science/human achievement. Then again, I see the bible as a great myth, as opposed to literally true. I can say god created the universe in six days, but that can be six days defined much differently than we see a "day".
...
I can see how an absolute literal interpretation of the bible would conflict with science- it says god created the world in six days, and a literalist would say that's six days as we understand days.
|
And my question is, on what basis do you decide which parts are literally true and which parts are not? How much of it has to be proven to contradict reality before all of it becomes suspect? If the entire thing is presented as literally true, but some of it clearly cannot be, how can you both accept the rest of it as true and consider the reality that contradicts it to be true? How much of it can you strip out without it becoming completely meaningless and unnecessary? If you've gotten to the point where your reality remains the same "regardless of god", then why continue to bother with the concept of god?