History and Religion

The sites we have seen while in Rome have been magnificent; all with a connecting thread.  They are linked to one another through this promise of salvation.  The churches, those grand structures which make the ones at home appear popper-ish, are based on the glory of God.  The temples built, which were later converted into more churches, were for the praise and worship of the gods or the emperors who died and in doing do were deified.

                The question then is this: does the documented past bolster faith or limit it?  And then there is the religious significance of past events.  Jesus is the prime example of this.  Religious significance tells us that Jesus was the Son of God and that he rose from the dead on the third day, which is where we derive Easter from.  However there is no historical or documented evidence of this.  We have the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but those were written much later.  The whole Bible itself is meant to be loosely interpreted.

                There are then the two kinds of history that we have to look at, and that are especially prevalent when in Rome.   The documented past-things that have been proven with the help of science and artifacts, and the undocumented past.  These two types of history have to be looked at as separate entities.  I look at them as separate entities.  Because otherwise, nothing really makes sense.  Science can only go so far.  For instance no one really knows how accurate carbon dating is and the Bible says that the world was created only a few thousand years ago.  Science states that the earth was created billions of years ago.

                Yet I really don’t think that historical facts do anything, personally, to detract from the religion or the significance of it because its basis is of faith.  If we had facts to prove it, then we wouldn’t call it faith anymore.  I personally liked all the churches we have visited.  They’re beautiful and meant to inspire.  And they achieve this.