News24

Ancient 'purity' seal found near Jerusalem temple

2011-12-26 07:36

Jerusalem - Israeli archaeologists said on Sunday they had found a 2,000-year-old clay seal near Jerusalem's Western Wall, confirming written accounts of ritual practices in the biblical Jewish Temple.

The button-shaped object bears the Aramaic words "pure for God", suggesting it was used to certify food and animals used in sacrificial ceremonies.

The Western Wall is part of the compound revered by Jews as the Temple Mount, where Islam's al-Aqsa mosque and Dome of the Rock shrine now stand in a holy complex Muslims call the Noble Sanctuary.

"It seems that the inscribed object was used to mark products or objects that were brought to the Temple, and it was imperative they be ritually pure," the Israel Antiquities Authority said in a statement announcing the find.

The authority said it believed it was the first time such a seal had been excavated, providing direct archaeological evidence of ritual activity in the temple described in ancient texts.

Comments
  • Ari - 2011-12-26 09:10

    And people still believe that if a priest says something is now "pure for god" that it is so - and are willing to pay good money to have such an item. I weep for the species.

  • Garth - 2011-12-26 09:29

    Agree with Ari. Some pederast wiping the last traces from his hands and robe, of the delectable youth he has just violated, stamps some food or an animal, with some holy seal and suddenly it is pure! The sooner that all religions disappear and take their sheep with them, the better for this world.

      Garth - 2011-12-26 10:01

      Nice one Balstrome. They should utilise those `magical abilities' to: a) protect themselves from attacks made by other people with the same `magical abilities'? b) destroy all other `false' religions. c) remove poverty and hunger from the world, if such be their want, although self-enrichment appears to be the norm. d) convert the inconvertible. Can't do hey? Because your god(s) do not exist.

      tony.delucchi - 2011-12-28 12:24

      ...what a silly unfounded statement!

  • Wendy - 2011-12-26 10:19

    It is just an archaeological find from 2000 years ago .. what is believed today and practiced today .. is man's choice .. not God's

      jtowell - 2011-12-26 14:55

      It was man's choice and not God's 2000 years ago too. that's the whole point - God gives us a free will.

      Juan - 2011-12-27 03:36

      Religion is man's creation, not God's creation. @Atheist how would you explain the clever engineering of lets say your own body? Where did that come from? What created it? It just one day appeared by accident?

  • Ian - 2011-12-26 14:24

    Garth must have a fantastic imagination to read something so despicable into an article about a find at an historical site.

      Garth - 2011-12-26 15:29

      Not really, if I had a fantastic imagination I would be religious. It does not need much imagination to read the impurity involved in some human thinking that because he has stamped an item with a seal that it is `pure for god'. And that from the most ancient of practised religions.

      Ian - 2011-12-26 16:41

      Well, it was the priests,presumably, who were the keepers of the Tabernacle. Who would know better what was fit to offer to their God? It is, in essence, the same as saying that the SABS mark is man made and therefore rubbish because not everybody approved it.. My point really was that your absurd remark about the paedophile actions had nothing to do with this article, which now seems to have attracted all the usual trolls.

      Ian - 2011-12-26 20:26

      Atheitis. Where do you come with the idea that this article has anything to do with the existence of God? You are so keen to make your "point" that you are going completely off track. It is about a find of an historical article, which just happens to contain the word "God". It does not purport to prove the existence of God. Just that the ancient Jews had a ritual use for it. So I don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else. Now be a good boy and go to bed.

  • Elsie - 2011-12-26 17:09

    Incredible that non-believers always want to say something about God - why bother to comment if you do not believe. Is it because you can hear His voice deep down inside and are scared to believe?????

      Mike - 2011-12-26 18:11

      Non-believers have every right to comment...free speech, more particularly, as secular laws prevent you from burning them at the stake.

  • Patrick - 2011-12-26 18:19

    This article reports an archaeological discovery. Isn't it amazing how the atheists are the first to jump into action and attack the article (first few comments), and then not even they do not even address the actual content. So much for objective analysis...

  • RationalBeliever - 2011-12-26 19:11

    @Atheitis: the other way to interpret it is that, what has been discovered here actually provides more archaeological evidence *for* the contents of the Bible (makes one think, heh? :-). One should also make a distinction between the man-made religious practices of the Israelites and that which God expected of them.

      Cracker - 2011-12-26 19:44

      @ RationalBeliever Religion is plain dangerous. Leave it to flourish unchallenged and it will eventually turn its ugly autocratic face against the whole of humanity and start devouring our freedoms. The consequences of religion for man (and of course nature) are well recorded. The majority of religions, not just the biblically based ones. The biblical god expected sacrifices in terms not only of animals but also humans. It is so well-recorded in the bible that one can only shake one's head in disbelief that it is denied. God did not for example add to the cessation of the Inquisition. He for example allowed his own so-called chosen nation to be culled in their millions - planned it by allowing (if not actively abetting) the invention for example of the lethal gas mixtures used in the Nazi death camps. What is it with you believers that you can't desist from spreading your sick propaganda, or rather, that you actually believe your own sick propaganda contrary to the huge body of evidence that point away from the existence of your god? Perhaps there is something like a god but it is definitely not the biblical god.

  • RationalBeliever - 2011-12-26 21:33

    @Cracker I agree with you that religion is dangerous. In fact, it is plain stupid. By 'religion' I mean the man-made rituals, blind faith and mindless actions practised by fanatical ignorami, usually motivated by a charismatic leader with an egotistical agenda, or group with a political agenda. That's bad stuff, which leads to things like the Inquisition, Crusades or even modern-day jihads, etc. The problem is that there are very few believers who live true to what they are supposed to believe. That is why Mahatma Gandhi said “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ”. It breaks my heart to think that is what a non-Christian thought of Christians. But it is true, and it proves my point: people make a religion out of something which was intended to be beautiful and true. Islam does not require jihad, and Christianity expects every (true) follower to love his neighbour, regardless of his neighbour's religion, sex or skin colour, etc. You talk about the biblical God expecting human sacrifices? I do not know about that?... If you are referring to the test God put Abraham through with Isaac to test his faith: God never demanded that Isaac actually be killed. You are referring to the Inquisition and the Holocaust as if God *intended* it, but that is what happens when God gives mankind free will - and they abuse it. Not unlike what Atheists like Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong did. It's not limited to Christians and religion.

      Cracker - 2011-12-26 22:18

      @ RationalBeliever I am not defending or pitting the personalities you mention in the last sentence against Christianity or any other religion. The persons you mentioned were filth and we need to be careful that psychos like them never again be allowed to impose the carnage they and their supporters were guilty of. To lump them together as atheists as if they represent the opposite pole to religion does not serve as a defense of religion. The fact is that religion is being promoted by some very dangerous movements and those movements are endangering our freedoms. Atheism or no atheism. If an atheist movement like the semi-religious communists for example promotes the limitation of our freedoms they deserve the same treatment as religious movements who advocate the same. In fact, in this country at least we are being permitted to voice our opposition - eventually it will go to a more extreme level if needs be - against the communist ideology being advertised presently. So, it is not only religion that is being criticized.

      Cracker - 2011-12-26 22:39

      But it actually goes a bit further. Christianity - leave aside for the moment other bible based faiths - are notorious for the blatant lies they tell people. Your average so-called Christian has never even read the bible - whichever version preferred - from cover to cover. They blindly swallow what is fed them and in the process blindly perpetuates the dangerous and cruel myths Christianity feeds on. As for human sacrifice, what about the orders by god to kill men, women, everything in sight or to be found? According to the bible. It is human sacrifice aimed at satisfying the blood thirstiness harbored and relished in by the ancient creators of the biblical god. Or do we not at some stage draw a distinction between a supreme deity who created the unimaginably large and still expanding and changing universe - the 7th rest day out the window as a result of course - and the lust for blood - animal and human - of his creation? Or are the two ultimately not perhaps the two sides of the same coin? It is suggested that www.evilbible.com be visited.

      jody.beggs - 2012-01-24 09:09

      "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." , Martin Luther. An awesome quote from a religious nut. Damn the man.

  • RationalBeliever - 2011-12-26 22:18

    @Atheitis: * "...primitive bronze age illiterate sheep herders worshiped a mythical god does not prove the god to be true...". That reply is typical of someone who has not exerted real effort to understand the beauty of a set of books written by about 40 authors, with extremely diverse backgrounds, over a total of around 1600 years, on three continents - resulting in all books containing the same gold-threaded, synergistic and cohesive theme. * "Rational Believer is an oxymoron". Nope: have a look at my profile. It's more like the particle-wave duality of matter: both are true, without invalidating the other :-)

      Cracker - 2011-12-26 22:46

      It is simply a myth that the books contain a cohesive theme. Now also consider the many other books that were written that were excluded for the body of religious works.

      Cracker - 2011-12-26 22:48

      Something to further consider. Where is the so-called beauty in the books?

      Majorus - 2011-12-26 23:41

      Ezekiel 23:20 is quite beautiful

  • Steward - 2011-12-26 23:00

    I wonder why these atheists are so angry at God? A person would believe he owes them something.

      Cracker - 2011-12-26 23:12

      You have not bothered to read the postings. So, keep on wondering or read the postings.

      RationalBeliever - 2011-12-26 23:35

      Steward, they are angry because of a few things: - Religious people and fanatics who do odd things counter to the 'belief system' they claim to represent. I understand their frustration... it also frustrates me as a believer. - They also think that ALL believers are religious, gullible and non-rational, which is not the case. Unfortunately, many believers are religious and do not really know *what* they believe and *why* they believe it - other than what they have been *told* to believe. And they tend to merely regurgitate what they have been brainwashed - instead of having their own opinion based on facts they made their own. - The fact that God is spirit and cannot be measured - and therefore cannot be proven. This one frustrates the hell out of them - excuse the pun :-)

      Steward - 2011-12-26 23:49

      First truly rational argument I've heard from anyone so far. Only thing is I believe the existence of the holy spirit is so fundamental that to question it is a form of insanity in itself. If you believe you are alive, then that goes to show the next person is alive too. You can't say you are more alive than the ant in the garden. All life, all one spirit. Unless you are saying you are not alive, which means you are either dead or insane. So what is it gonna be?

      Majorus - 2011-12-27 02:18

      @ RationalBeliever No, you are incorrect - ALL believers are "non-rational" as you put it. You call the idea of the universe creating itself out of nothing without the hand of a creator behind it ridiculous. Way too complex and big right? But the creator creating himself out of nothing and thereafter creating the universe out of nothing - perfectly plausible. Yeah, you can waffle that the creator "exists" outside our spacetime, or resort to gems such as "the creator operates outside the boundaries of logic", but if that isn't the arguments of someone that is clutching at straws I don't know what is. Basically, whichever creation method non-believers derive through science you laugh at, but then YOU go and add ANOTHER step to the process and then claim that your solution makes perfect sense.

      Majorus - 2011-12-27 10:35

      @ Atheitis So very true :-( Saddest thing about it all: science offers us the possibility of living very long / almost indefinitely, yet these morons do everything they can to stop that (ban stem cell research, etc) just on the hunch that a wizard will be doing the work for them. Irony doesn't begin to describe it..

      Steward - 2011-12-27 11:10

      You can lie to others, but not to yourself. Get past your anger and your eyes may just open.

      Majorus - 2011-12-27 11:29

      @ Steward Just wondering: do you think that a person that can't follow a conversation (e.g. someone else says something and then he/she replies in such a way that it is clear that he hasn't got an idea what they are talking about) is unintelligent? Or is he/she just misunderstood?

      RationalBeliever - 2011-12-27 11:35

      @Atheitis: I work and operate in the domain of science and logic, which is why I make it my duty to research and understand what I believe. But why do I get the impression you are so preconceived in your generalised opinion about Christians that *you* are the one not willing to reason? Especially with irrational statements like "There is little point in arguing with the religious, any more than convincing drunks alcohol is harmful. They need their fix. That is all there is to it." @Majorus: You say "You call the idea of the universe creating itself out of nothing without the hand of a creator behind it ridiculous." No, I would call that a miracle. And *you* are the one who believes it. But then again, you would believe *anything* rather than admitting the existence of God, much like Dawkins would rather believe life on earth came from another planet, forgetting about the fact that THAT life had to come from somewhere. I believe in an un-caused Cause: God. And before you and Atheitis classify me as a Young Earth Creationist - I am not. I believe that the universe is around 13,7 Bn years old - and I believe in theistic evolution. I studied science (still do) and I read the Bible - and they do not have to be opposed. You guys (atheists) would like to have the world believe that the only people who think and reason are the ones who believe in science *without* God or, conversely, that all Christians are gullible morons. Sorry to burst your bubble...

      Majorus - 2011-12-27 12:36

      @ Rationalbeliever Sorry, can you please re-phrase what you meant? I read it as: The universe creating itself out of nothing without the hand of a creator IS A MIRACLE. Since I assume your use of the word "miracle" implies divine intervention, that statement is another oxymoron. Or alternatively, before this conversation goes into circular reasoning mode: Do you think that the scientific idea that the universe created itself out of nothing without a creator creating it is ridiculous - yes or no? Also, I don't quite understand where Dawkins fits into the picture? What relevance has the theory that the primordial pools where the first building blocks of life assembled could have been off-world (due to better conditions) have to this topic?

      Majorus - 2011-12-27 12:46

      @ RationalBeliever And "un-caused cause"? Mr Unknown Unknowns Rumsfeld would have been proud. Thanks for proving my point (that you're not rational)

      RationalBeliever - 2011-12-27 13:14

      @Majoris: and you believe that "the universe created itself out of nothing"? Well now, if that isn't "non-God"-of-the-gaps reasoning... (And don't pull any unproven string theory tricks out of the hat here)

      RationalBeliever - 2011-12-27 13:19

      @Majoris: That is very narrow-minded thinking. Just because someone believes in God, a door shuts closed in your mind and you think "this guy is irrational". There are MANY rationally-minded Bible-believing scientists out there. Science is not the sole domain of Atheists.

      RationalBeliever - 2011-12-27 13:25

      @Majoris: what I was trying to say is that you believe: * 1st there is nothing, not time, space or matter, then... * Poof! From nothing and nowhere, suddenly there is matter, and time begins and space expands Do you agree with that? (Apart from maybe the "Poof!" :-) I do not believe or agree that it was possible. It sounds too much like a miracle. And I am concerned that YOU actually believe it...

      Steward - 2011-12-27 13:27

      @Majorus, when asked a question I prefer to not merely look at the question, but also at the underlying cause. When I see comments made by atheists I see massive ignorance and a major superiority complex. No you are not smarter by not believing in God. It just makes you crazy. By saying you do not believe you create a spiral of logic which results in you yourself not existing. If that is what you choose to believe then be happy in your coo-coo land.

      Majorus - 2011-12-27 14:57

      RationalBeliever - replying to: "@Majoris: what I was trying to say is that you believe: * 1st there is nothing, not time, space or matter, then... * Poof! From nothing and nowhere, suddenly there is matter, and time begins and space expands Do you agree with that? (Apart from maybe the "Poof!" :-) I do not believe or agree that it was possible. It sounds too much like a miracle.And I am concerned that YOU actually believe it... " No, you still don't get it... I say: 0 -> universe. You laugh at the preposterity of this idea since it doesn't make sense for something to be created without a "cause" You say: God -> 0 -> universe. Now you have solved the problem of "cause" but only for the creation of the universe. The "where does the creator come from" question still remains, which you ignore through the use of statements like he/she/it is an "uncaused cause" Thus you are applying the need for a cause only where you see fit - see the failed logic? I'm not saying that I can explain why or how the universe created itself, because I can't at this stage, only that your creation idea is even more elaborate than mine and it still suffers from the same problems. Since you have a scientific background you should be aware of Occam's Razor - get rid of that which is superfluous (ps to the purists: I'm not saying the 0 -> universe idea is necessarily correct; the universe could have been in existence for forever. Above reasoning applies either way)

      Majorus - 2011-12-27 15:16

      @ Steward Seriously?? You're going to lecture me on logic? "By saying you do not believe you create a spiral of logic which results in you yourself not existing." WELL, I DON'T BELIEVE. SO OBVIOUSLY I DON'T EXIST. WHO'S TYPING THIS RIGHT NOW THEN? "If you believe you are alive, then that goes to show the next person is alive too" YEAH, AND IF YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE PURPLE HAIR, THEN THAT GOES TO SHOW THAT THE NEXT PERSON HAS PURPLE HAIR TOO Now, go be a good boy and go play with the other children outside

      RationalBeliever - 2011-12-27 16:13

      @Majoris I think we both know this argument well: we have different (let's call them) theories for how the universe came into existence. I cannot prove yours wrong, but nor can you do it with mine. And I doubt that we are going to convince each other otherwise :-) Part of you seeing my point as a problem is the fact that your model does not cater for a God, because in your mind there is nothing more than matter. Part of the reason I believe in such a God is because the Bible describes such a plausible creation scenario. That "Big Bang" scenario was originally scoffed at by mny Atheists when it was still thought that the universe was in an eternal state of flux between expansion and contraction. The Bible had a different stance on it... and it was eventually shown to be right. Don't misunderstand me: I do not regard the Bible as a science manual. I therefore do not agree with YEC, i.e. creation of the universe in 7 literal days a few thousand years ago. Nor does the Bible's stance *prove* anything as such, but it does not contradict science - and it was right even before scientists made up their minds. The fact that it does not contradict science does give believers a "warm feeling" that God knows what He is talking about. Unfortunately, one only gets that warm feeling if one believes in him :-) Let's rather just agree to disagree on this point, because arguing will not change either your or my mind.

      Trevor Lovell - 2011-12-27 16:33

      @rational believer. I've been reading a number of the posts you've put up here and I'm really impressed with with the way you've illustrated the reasoning for theism. Your un-caused cause theory sounds like it came from Robert Spitzer's

      Trevor Lovell - 2011-12-27 16:41

      @rational believer, sorry got cut off mid reply: did you read Robert Spitzer's book: new proofs for the existence of God? If you have let me know your thoughts. It was a real eye opener. One thing I have noticed is the confusion between atheist and irreligious. The book is interesting in that it provides proofs for theism against atheism without bringing religion into the equation. I know I'm way off the purity symbol topic here but for the first time I've read some credible arguments although I've had to wade through some of the mud slinging.

      Majorus - 2011-12-27 16:47

      @ RationalBeliever The bible does not contradict science? What, are you kidding? Did Jonah not require oxygen to breathe when he was purportedly inside a fish? Was the earth flat back when it was written? (References to "ends of the earth") Where is the "foundation" which purportedly supports the earth? How do you feed 6 million pairs of animals on a boat, never mind the little problem of getting Madagascarian and Australian land animals to cross oceans first to get to the boat? To name but a few.

      Steward - 2011-12-27 18:01

      Which further backs my argument, now you go play with the children outside. You truly cannot argue logic with an ignoramus.

      Majorus - 2011-12-27 18:18

      @ Steward What further backs your argument? Do you even know what your argument is or are you just randomly commenting using the biggest words you know?

      Steward - 2011-12-27 18:26

      That was rude of me. Let me phrase this better. By admitting you are alive, you concede there is a spirit animating your body. It is not some mystical delusion. It is real because it is allowing you to feel guilt and anger and also pain and everything else. If it was not real then you could just as easily reanimate a corpse. Life for the next person is just as relevant as it is for yourself, same as it is for every living thing. Separate life from matter and all you have is dead, inert matter. What is God but the source of all life. As you have already admitted the fact that you are actually sitting across from a screen having this discussion, are you saying that you are not actually alive? Or that your life is more special than the life of any living thing? Denial of God is a denial of life which is a denial of your own existence. With all the thumb-downs I've been getting would have to assume there's a bunch of soulless automatons that disagree with my views.

      RationalBeliever - 2011-12-27 19:29

      @Trevor Lovell No, I have not read Trevor Spitzer's book. Personally, I am not sure whether one will find scientific proof for God's existence. I think one can only see the *results* of his handiwork, investigate it, test it and learn from it - as science is doing. Isn't it also remarkable how various people, quite independent of each other, *discover* (not invent) the laws of mathematics? And how these laws 'happen to' describe the physics of the universe? But God is spirit, which is not in the physical domain, and therefore not measurable. That is why I think one will not find proof of God's existence. And one has to be very careful not to fall in the trap where, if one is not able to understand a phenomenon (yet), call that proof of God's existence. That phenomenon (sometimes called a "miracle") may now be ascribed to God, but may later to be refuted by a valid scientific explanation as knowledge grows.

      RationalBeliever - 2011-12-27 19:31

      @Majoris Re the "not contradicting science" in that context: I was referring the origin of the universe, and its description in Genesis.

      Trevor Lovell - 2011-12-27 19:50

      @rational believer. I couldn't agree more. When you said un-caused cause it was a phrase used repeatedly in the book alongside the phrase an unconditioned reality. The book described God as spirit. Absolutely unique, absolutely simple, a pure act of understanding, understanding itself. The book sought to bring together aspects of metaphysics along with the current thinking in the physics of our universe's creation. It was a very interesting book and I would recommend you read it.

      Majorus - 2011-12-28 10:11

      @ Steward By admitting you are alive, you concede there is a spirit animating your body. NO. IF I ADMIT THAT I'M A ROCK, DO I THEN HAVE TO CONCEDE THAT I'M ROUND? It is not some mystical delusion. YES IT IS It is real because it is allowing you to feel guilt and anger and also pain and everything else. THE EMOTIONS WE EXPERIENCE ARE THE NEURAL PATHWAYS IN OUR BRAINS FIRING IN RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC INPUT PARAMETERS If it was not real then you could just as easily reanimate a corpse. SEEMS YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT DEATH IS. YOU CAN START HERE: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death Life for the next person is just as relevant as it is for yourself, same as it is for every living thing. OK, THANKS FOR THIS INSIGHT Separate life from matter and all you have is dead, inert matter. REALLY? YOU'RE ABLE TO EXTRACT "LIFE" FROM LIVING CELLS TO LEAVE INANIMATE MATTER BEHIND? YOU SHOULD PATENT THAT What is God but the source of all life. IF YOU SAY SO. YAWN. As you have already admitted the fact that you are actually sitting across from a screen having this discussion, are you saying that you are not actually alive? NO, YOU DID Or that your life is more special than the life of any living thing? LOOK: CUTE BUNNIES Denial of God is a denial of life which is a denial of your own existence. IF YOU SAY SO. YAWN With all the thumb-downs I've been getting would have to assume there's a bunch of soulless automatons that disagree with my views. WOW, FINALLY WE AGREE! NO SUCH THING AS A SOUL

      Majorus - 2011-12-28 10:22

      @ RationalBeliever Awesome, does this mean you can pick the parts of the bible that you agree with and discard the ones you don't? Or do you see some parts as literal and others as figurative? Must be hard to decide which is which

      Steward - 2011-12-28 17:47

      @Marjorus, I will pray for you.

      jody.beggs - 2012-01-24 09:41

      @Steward , do you even read your posts. "By admitting you are alive, you concede there is a spirit animating your body. It is not some mystical delusion." , no atheist on the site has every conceded this. And it is a delusion. Do you really believe what your saying ? I feel so therefore there's a God. What a Mormon ! Another peach , "If it was not real then you could just as easily reanimate a corpse." - so way can't we do that with animals because after all they have no soul and don't go to heaven. "Life for the next person is just as relevant as it is for yourself, same as it is for every living thing." , the bible disagrees with you on that one , animals have no importance to Jeebus ! "Separate life from matter and all you have is dead, inert matter." , kinda like your gray matter , right ? And finally, "What is God but the source of all life." the answer is nothing , a fictional sky God , that'll burn you in Hell for not believing in his childish fetish's. None of your arguments are based on facts , maybe you need to pray harder? Damn the man.

      jody.beggs - 2012-01-24 09:47

      Its a general consensus that idiots don't need proof, just the warm feeling they get from the church community. The Bible isn't about the existence of God , its about human relationships , a guide drawn up since the early stages of Judaism. It is not practical today and this is shown by the diverse interpretations of the Bible. Do you really follow a religion that advocated Death of children, any other religions , non-believers , lyers , etc. ? (such a loving God) Damn the man.

      Rory - 2012-01-24 10:14

      @stewart , they're not angry at god , they angry at stupid people ..

  • RationalBeliever - 2011-12-27 11:12

    @Atheitis, you seem selective in your choice of dictionary. Here is another version (especially number 3): Definition of BELIEF 1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing 2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group 3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence Number 3 falls in the same category as a "scientific theory" - and they are often revised when new evidence arises Number 3 also holds true for the way I believe, it is just a bit more difficult to get to the root of some of the issues (don't get on the wrong bandwagon with this statement of mine, e.g "Bible myths", etc.). Yes, there are apparent problems if one only looks superficially, but they are continuously being addressed and resolved as the historical evidence, language, culture, etc. are better understood, and if one is willing to understand that the Bible was written in and Ancient Near East context - and not as a scientific manual. And yes, when one tries to interpret non-literal scripture literally, one is bound to get to some weird conclusions. But, if one is willing to spend proper effort, things make a lot more GOOD sense. In a similar way, we cannot merely deny the existence of the quantum world merely because we do not understand its intricate details, or deny electricity merely because we have not seen an electron.

      jody.beggs - 2012-01-24 10:00

      @RationalBeliever "In a similar way, we cannot merely deny the existence of the quantum world merely because we do not understand its intricate details, or deny electricity merely because we have not seen an electron. " , Your statement doesn't make sense. Both of your arguments can be proven by experiments but the existence of a sky God cannot. Try comparing lemon with squids next time , maybe it'll work out better for you. "But, if one is willing to spend proper effort, things make a lot more GOOD sense." Of course they bible will make sense and have good points , it was written to control and manipulate people through time. By the way , just because more than one person believes in the same thing , doesn't make it real , its just a group delusion. Tell me , why do churches force religions onto impressionable children , if not to instill fear of hell and eternal damnation. Of course kids will believe and follow throughout their lives , it was instilled on a innocent trusting brain. Just admit to yourself that you don't need proof , that you're a sheeple and your proud of it.

  • pages:
  • 1