Why do people insist that pure blind belief is all you need to prove the existance of anything that may or may not have occurred thousands of years ago?
Throughout history, anything that has been recorded has always had a biased slant to it. Egyptians for example on many occasions would deface any carvings that they found scandalous or embarrassing to their legacy, so it's no surprise that the written word on parchment would be the same.
2007-01-28 16:33:54 · 1 answers · asked by Cinnamon 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Pin, I completely agree with you. But what I'm asking is if with modern technology and and eyewitness accounts, we can't even figure out who killed JFK and other mysteries, what is there to truthfully document that someone like Jesus or Moses or whoever truly existed? Or a worldwide flood? And the list goes on. The only reason we know of those things and people is because a book says they're true and that if we don't believe we are all doomed.
2007-01-28 16:51:48 · update #1
Simple answer - all is science that is yet unexplained, so herefore seen as "magic".
Think back to how fire must have been revered the first time it was seen - likely started by lightening. The devestation it could cause - and yet it came from the sky, without no seencause - didnt they think it was magical?
What of the tribes who, once they saw a develped photo, thought that the photographer was trying to steal their souls?
It's all magical and will be believed until it can be explained. we've just not managed that level of tech yet is all.
2007-01-28 16:45:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋