Blind Faith

Originally posted by sonship
Faith seems to leave man [b]nothing to boast in.
Faith in Christ leaves the believing one nothing in which to boast before man.

Is the biblical faith a blind faith?

We can argue about whether faith is blind or is not blind.
My faith has never been completely "blind".

It sometimes has been like a pilot flying an airplane through th ...[text shortened]... ing rather than blindness. This is a seeing which is more real than that of the physical senses.[/b]

One might even call it a "knowing", yes?

Originally posted by Suzianne
One might even call it a "knowing", yes?

one would then be wrong, yes.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you define a concept. you assign a string of letters to it, a word. from then, that word is that concept.


your concept is not faith, faith is already taken and it means belief without proof.
your concept is not even a concept, it is an oxymoron. there is no knowledge without proof

"your concept is not faith, faith is already taken and it means belief without proof."

What does that mean, "faith is already taken"? Taken where? Besides, "belief without proof" is your definition, not the Bible's.

"your concept is not even a concept, it is an oxymoron. there is no knowledge without proof"

The assertion, "there is no knowledge without proof", is false. There is a whole universe of knowledge out there you have absolutely no proof for, much less any awareness of.

Originally posted by sonship

There are two expressions of faith that I see in scripture. One is ours, and the other is God's. It depends on the context and purpose of the faith in question that defines its expression.

For example: Gal. 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live b ...[text shortened]... now live, which is " by the faith of the son of God".

I say this is very good.

Appreciated

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
one would then be wrong, yes.

And that "one" would be you.

These things aren't really "relative". Either you do or you don't.

In this case, clearly you don't. Too bad for you.

Originally posted by josephw
The assertion, "there is no knowledge without proof", is false. There is a whole universe of knowledge out there you have absolutely no proof for, much less any awareness of.

Yes.

But he seems happy in his weak faith.

It could be much more, but yes, he is purposefully blind to it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means he has cut himself off from it for no reason. But, that is his choice.

Originally posted by Suzianne
One might even call it a "knowing", yes?

Yes, I recall the Greek language is rich. There are at least two words for know used in the New Testament. I think one is oida and the other ginosko. I may be able to find some discussion on the two words.

The first is a more subjection knowing, I recall. The latter is a more objective one. But I would have to review some things.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"your concept is not faith, faith is already taken and it means belief without proof."

What does that mean, "faith is already taken"? Taken where? Besides, "belief without proof" is your definition, not the Bible's.

"your concept is not even a concept, it is an oxymoron. there is no knowledge without proof"

The assertion, "there is no ...[text shortened]... le universe of knowledge out there you have absolutely no proof for, much less any awareness of.[/b]

you cannot use something to prove itself no matter how much you delude yourself.

"There is a whole universe of knowledge out there you have absolutely no proof for, much less any awareness of"
you become aware of knowledge when you prove it. you consider it knowledge when you prove it. until then, you have faith. assumptions. guesses. none of which is knowledge. there may be paralel universes but no scientist will call that hypothesis knowledge just because it looks interesting and some scientists have "faith" in it.

yes, there are facts outside our current knowledge. that is different from having faith in something and not bothering to verify it. i am not gonna say i have knowledge the easter bunny is real just because i have faith in it.

Originally posted by Suzianne
And that "one" would be you.

These things aren't really "relative". Either you do or you don't.

In this case, clearly you don't. Too bad for you.

thankfully, as you have proven again and again, your opinion means squat. whatever that opinion may be, your post is incoherent enough that i say precisely what you want.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes.

But he seems happy in his weak faith.

It could be much more, but yes, he is purposefully blind to it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means he has cut himself off from it for no reason. But, that is his choice.

"weak faith."
it is funny that you consider that a bad thing

"he is purposefully blind to it. "
blind to what? biblical "truth"?

tell me, how many religions are there? how many have there been? each of those religions had members who believed wholeheartedly in their "truth", their "knowledge". does the shaman of an amazonian tribe "know" who the creator is? does the buddhist monk? do you? which is right? how do you tell?

you just agreed with whoever put forth this stupid notion that faith equals knowledge. so how do you tell which believer is wrong?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"weak faith."
it is funny that you consider that a bad thing

"he is purposefully blind to it. "
blind to what? biblical "truth"?

tell me, how many religions are there? how many have there been? each of those religions had members who believed wholeheartedly in their "truth", their "knowledge". does the shaman of an amazonian tribe "know" who the cr ...[text shortened]... orth this stupid notion that faith equals knowledge. so how do you tell which believer is wrong?

Yes, weak faith IS a bad thing. It is a cause for most of the beefs unbelievers have with believers. Weak faith makes people do all manner of things those with strong faith would never do, and all because they are afraid they might be wrong. Strong faith is not afraid.

"blind to what? biblical 'truth'?"

Blind to the knowledge inherent in faith. But you're not alone. You have plenty of company with all the atheists out there.

And it says much that you say the truth of the Bible is "truth". Now I see why your faith is weak. Is the Bible just a book of "fairy tales" to you? Why are you a Christian, again? Or are you a "Christian" in much the same way that 6-year-old girls are "princesses"?

How many religions are there, or ever? Who cares?

"you just agreed with whoever put forth this stupid notion that faith equals knowledge. so how do you tell which believer is wrong?"

Really, how many times did I have to post I agreed with what he said (which was not *exactly* that "faith equals knowledge", btw) before you figured that one out? But it's not stupid. Maybe if you had just a little more faith, you could see that.

And you really have to ask me which believer is wrong? How weak IS your faith anyways? Is it there at all?

Look, I'm as liberal left as the next person. But some on the left make the mistake of assuming everyone, everywhere is "equal". They are much less concerned with right and wrong, and so, to many of them, right and wrong are equal too. And this is where they err.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes, weak faith IS a bad thing. It is a cause for most of the beefs unbelievers have with believers. Weak faith makes people do all manner of things those with strong faith would never do, and all because they are afraid they might be wrong. Strong faith is not afraid.

People with strong faith are not afraid to do things like torch churches, mosques, and temples, to behead people for religious reasons, to murder abortion doctors, to predict or wish upon others eternal agony and torture, to strap on explosives and sacrifice themselves to kill people, to allow their children to die for want of medical procedures, and so on and so on... people of weak faith don't do things like these. People who are unbelievers (non-Christians shall we say) have more 'beefs' with people of strong faith than they do with people of weak faith; I say this as an unbeliever myself.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"your concept is not faith, faith is already taken and it means belief without proof."

What does that mean, "faith is already taken"? Taken where? Besides, "belief without proof" is your definition, not the Bible's.

"your concept is not even a concept, it is an oxymoron. there is no knowledge without proof"

The assertion, "there is no ...[text shortened]... le universe of knowledge out there you have absolutely no proof for, much less any awareness of.[/b]

Knowledge is justified belief which is true. So I'm wondering about your statement that the assertion that there is no knowledge without proof is false. Setting aside issues regarding whether a given belief is true or not, what level of justification do you regard as sufficient? Clearly a proof would be sufficient justification if it were possible, but justification doesn't have to be epistemologically perfect.

I look at the clock and it says 2:17. My justification for claiming to know that it's 2:17 is that that is what the clock says and it is set by the network time protocol which means it's accurate to within less than a second. This assumes there isn't some sort of conspiracy or systematic failure that means the timer on my computer is wrong. Since it agrees with the clockwork clock on the wall those possibilities are ruled out. So unless I'm a brain in a vat or other there is some other highly implausible reason I was mislead over the time it was 2:17 when I typed that time in. I had a very high level of justification for my belief. I can reasonably have claimed to have known the time.

Now with a claim to know that God exists there are two basic problems. The first is there is no way of testing that the belief is the truth, at least in this world. So we don't know that it is true. The second is that the justification is unclear. I have heard theists justify their belief by saying that they cannot imagine a universe without God. This is fine as a justification for a belief, but I don't really think it's justification enough to call it knowledge. I'm not claiming that this is how you justify your claim to knowledge, just that I cannot imagine a justification for believing God exists which does not fall short of as infallible as humans can be. My claim to have known the time is basically as infallible as human knowledge of anything beyond cogito ergo sum and the like is.

So I really don't think you can realistically claim that faith is based on knowledge. However, blind faith would be belief without any justification, which I'm not accusing you of, that you are claiming knowledge means that you must have some justification and therefore your faith is not blind.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes, weak faith IS a bad thing. It is a cause for most of the beefs unbelievers have with believers. Weak faith makes people do all manner of things those with strong faith would never do, and all because they are afraid they might be wrong. Strong faith is not afraid.

[b]"blind to what? biblical 'truth'?"

Blind to the knowledge inherent in fai ...[text shortened]... and wrong, and so, to many of them, right and wrong are equal too. And this is where they err.[/b]

"Weak faith makes people do all manner of things those with strong faith would never do"
meanwhile, people with strong faith will do all manner of things those with weak faith would never do. can you say ISIS, KKK, Westboro Baptists, etc?

"all because they are afraid they might be wrong."
yes, having doubt, pausing for a moment to think one's actions. such a bad thing. ISIS is not afraid they are wrong. they don't pause to think their actions.

"Is the Bible just a book of "fairy tales" to you? "
mostly fairy tales with a dash of decent philosophical directives. fairy tales that people with strong faith don't have the balls to call them what they are. Fairy tales that sometimes are in direct contradiction to those decent philosophical and moral directives.


"Why are you a Christian, again? "
i am a christian because i believe in jesus christ and i believe in his teachings. you, by thinking the genocide that was noah's flood or the conquest of canaan was righteous, are not a christian. westboro baptists are not christians. the KKK are not christians.


"Maybe if you had just a little more faith, you could see that."
yes, circular reasoning. something either stands on facts or cannot stand at all.

you don't have to take my word for it. in fact, i say that the only reason you don't see how the easter bunny is real is because your faith in the easter bunny is weak.


"And you really have to ask me which believer is wrong? How weak IS your faith anyways? Is it there at all?"
dodging the question. i am asking you, if two people have equally strong faith in 2 concepts that are contradicting each other, how do you tell which one is wrong? obviously at least one must be


"Look, I'm as liberal left as the next person."
being liberal and being rational are 2 different concepts. good for you for being liberal. that might mean you don't believe homosexuality is an abomination. it still doesn't mean your faith is rational. or mine.


"But some on the left make the mistake of assuming everyone, everywhere is "equal". They are much less concerned with right and wrong, and so, to many of them, right and wrong are equal too. And this is where they err."
have no idea what you wanted to say here. weasel words, unfounded and illogical statements, nonsense conclusions.

"some"
weasel word. some who?
"on the left"
what does the political left have to do with this?
"assuming everyone, everywhere is "equal""
equal rights or equal merits? neither of which has anything to do with the next point

"They are much less concerned with right and wrong, and so, to many of them, right and wrong are equal too."
this cannot be reasoned from the previous statements so i will just treat it separately. "they" another weasel word. "to many of them" another weasel word. "right and wrong are equal" this is downright stupid.

even if someone would be less concerned with right and wrong, one would need to be a sociopath to consider right and wrong to be equal. AND it still has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is knowledge and faith are entirely different concepts.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi

mostly fairy tales with a dash of decent philosophical directives. fairy tales that people with strong faith don't have the balls to call them what they are. Fairy tales that sometimes are in direct contradiction to those decent philosophical and moral directives.

As an example of your skill in seperating fairy tale from good philosophical and moral directives, let me offer you a portion to work on.

Take, let us say, the Gospel of John - chapter 5 and 6 if you're really good.

Could you separate for me the fairy tale parts from the good philosophical and moral directives part ?

John 5 has 47 verses.
John 6 has 53 verses.

Go through these 50 verses and classify the "fairy tale" verses from the "good philosophical and moral directives" verses. You can just use verse number to make your analysis.