Equally tricky is religions counterpart Athe-ism. Unlike religion, which is the belief in one Supreme Being in its simplest terms, atheism would be described as secular, or non-belief. In atheism, one does not to believe what they know, because they already know what they believe. The Archbishop of Canterbury said, “For, rather than seeking to understand so that I can believe, I believe so that I can understand .” This state-ment shows that if a person does not believe, then they will not be able to understand what or whom it is they are supposed to believe in. If something were to exist, a person would not have to believe in it in order to understand what it is that exists. The person would be able to attain knowledge on his or her own, and not have to receive it by believing something for any length of time. We can draw from the previous quote of the Archbishop that if a person wants to under-stand God they must mold their beliefs around what is outlined in the Bible. The person must believe that Jesus is the son of God; that he is the Savior the Messiah and was born to Mary and Joseph in the town of Bethlehem. In believing this, the person will be able to justify God’s exist-ence. Let us say that two friends are an argument, friend number one is a firm believer in Jesus Christ and attends church every Sunday. He grew up in a very religious household and all of his family members or Christians as well. He knows of God’s …show more content…
If one person set down a prose-lytize another, what would they use as their convincing argument? Will the person be satisfied if all the information they were receiving had come from personal experience, belief, and overall the opinion of the person who speaking to them? For thousands of years the Christian community has relied on the word of the Bible in order to establish the beliefs of their religion. The Bible is said to be written by the disciples of Jesus Christ. Within the Bible is an account of Jesus’s time on earth as well as the creation of the world itself. If the disciples of Jesus and not the man him-self wrote this book, is it not logical to think that there could have been an error in transcription? Not intentional error, but perhaps one of the disciples either misunderstood or misremembered what Jesus had told him to write down? The book is also existed for more than 3500 years, and has been translated into many languages. In certain languages words can look similar to each oth-er but mean to completely different things. Is it not possible that during one of the translations, a word could of been mistaken for another one and therefore change the entire meaning of para-graph or chapter. Given that the authors, as well as the translators were all human there is a sig-nificant margin for error. This is not because they were incapable people, but that as humans we are imperfect beings, and therefore prone to