I dont see that verse to mean faith is blind
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Nature of faith
- Thread starter ether-ore
- Start date
The verse says it has evidence. Normally evidence for unseen things still lead to the truth in times we arent a hundred about something, which is probably most the time for me lol.
ether-ore
Active Member
For me, faith is invested in the atonement of Jesus Christ, a past event, more so than in future events although I do believe that there are yet future events that have been prophesied to happen. Prophesies concerning the future, I believe, have been validated by the fact that some have already happened.
ether-ore
Active Member
If it can't see, it can't see whether blind or has its eyes closed. But either way means that there is no evidence to support faith.
I maintain that there is evidence. That evidence is the testimony of prophets and apostles concerning the atonement of Jesus Christ. Therefore faith can and does see, even if dimly because of reliance on that evidence only. The confirmation and enabling of an ability to see more clearly comes from the testimony of the Holy Ghost who's job it is to testify of the Father and the Son, and the Atonement.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I don't think 'evidence of things unseen' is quite the same as saying it has evidence, no offence - but that is a bit of an optimistic stretch.
I think is is about the evidence of the heart so to speak, our intuition - rather than objective evidence.
Last edited:
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I do.
And it is a common interpretation through Christian theology. I think that attributing it to an atheist agenda is frankly insulting and absurd - interpreting Hebrews 11 to mean that faith is blind is how many Christian theologians and how the majority of Christians (being Catholic) would see it.
Catholics are taught that faith is blind, in that we must believe in God without seeing the physical evidence Thomas demanded - it is a leap of faith. A leap of faith that is an essential characteristic of Catholicism. It is to trust in the apprehension of your heart, to accept God without doubt - faith.
Although accused several times of describing faith as blind because of my predjudice/bias/close mindedness and need to diminish and attack - that is not the case. I was raised a Catholic and was giving the interpretation I was taught.
Catholicism gives great significance to being a 'faith', that leap of faith, that willingness to follow your heart rather than your head and trust in the love of a God who will never physical manifest before you is critical to Christianity as Catholic theologians have understood it.
To attribute such things to some kind of atheist conspiracy is to fail to understand Christian theology.
Last edited:
ether-ore
Active Member
That's an interesting take, but I never attributed it to some kind of (or any kind of) atheist conspiracy. I never actually thought of it in those terms, I will admit to getting the impression that a lot of atheists think that way; otherwise they might not be atheists, being as they do seem to prefer the tangible and verifiable. I could see that atheists might consider that 'blind' faith to be an absurd proposition and leave Christianity as a consequence if they had ever really belonged to it in the first place. But I never saw it in terms of atheists conspiring together to use this topic as a vehicle for an attack... individually, maybe yes... collectively, no.
I would like to point out that Catholicism does not define Christian theology for everyone. If it did, there wouldn't be quite so many Christian denominations. It is perhaps true that the rest of Christendom didn't redefine this particular piece of doctrine, but since I'm not a Protestant and believe in a restoration of that which was lost; and also being someone myself individually that likes to use reason; I like to think about the reasons for things... in this case... what is there to base faith on; I don't buy into the Catholic definition. I still maintain that Paul (and Thomas if you like) were referring to believers having faith in their testimonies (both were in a teaching mode)... or in other words, to base their faith on the testimonies of those who are commissioned to be witnesses of Jesus Christ even though they (the individual believer) had not seen for themselves. To believe is necessary for a Christian, it is true, but how do the ideas for what to believe get into their heads? I answer: through the testimonies of those who have seen and recorded it (or had it recorded) in scripture.
Thomas, who you reference, also said that he would not believe unless he saw the resurrected Christ. This is where we get the idea of a "doubting Thomas". Christ appeared to Thomas after His resurrection, because Thomas, being an Apostle, it was necessary for him to see in order for him to be a true witness, while others would have to have faith on his words... that is... in his testimony.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Why do you keep referring to what some unnamed atheists said? I have not referred to atheism, but to scripture and Catholicism. I have not demeaned faith at all, I have not suggested it was an absurd proposition, I did not leave the Church because of it - I am not responsible for, or answerable for what some unnamed atheists may have said to you in the past. I am not speaking for atheism - and yet much of your posts to me addresses what some person other than myself said to you in the past. Would you kindly stop doing that..
I'm truly sorry you felt you needed to state the obvious there. I have no idea what made you assume I thought that Catholics defined Christian faith for everyone.
In your posts to me, you keep challenging the assumptions/rationale/intent of others who you do not identify, rather than engage on what I am saying.
I know that Christian were meant to have faith in Jesus' words, faith in testimony - you are arguing against things I have not said. I can not speak for these unnamed other atheists you keep quoting.
Last edited:
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
ether-or
As I said in another post here, I think faith being blind in the sense many theologians would understand it means that faith is drawn from the apprehensions of our hearts and minds, as opposed to what we can observe or test.
Sure, testimony is evidence, but the evidence is not objective - so it is just a different kind of evidence than the sort of evidence drawn from observation.
As I said in another post here, I think faith being blind in the sense many theologians would understand it means that faith is drawn from the apprehensions of our hearts and minds, as opposed to what we can observe or test.
Sure, testimony is evidence, but the evidence is not objective - so it is just a different kind of evidence than the sort of evidence drawn from observation.
ether-ore
Active Member
ether-ore
Active Member
I suppose one source of our disagreement is in from whom does the perspective come in terms of its being objective. If the event witnessed by the testator is indeed an event that actually happened (as in not made up by the person reporting it), then it is by definition, an objectively occurring event. It would only be subjective if the testator were making it up. The fact that the testator wrote it down, or had it written down by a third party scribe (so that generations following could have it), does not change the event from being objective to subjective. So, attempting to continue to engage the subject (rather than a particular person), a believer would only accept the testimony as evidence if he felt (through the power of the Holy Ghost) that it was an objective, real event. To put it another way, if it were determined that the report was subjective or some myth, then it would not likely be believed.
I do understand that many theologians believe the way you say they do. They believe differently from me and I believe them to be wrong. I consider neither the testimony of the witnesses or the confirmation of the Holy Ghost as mere apprehensions of the heart or mind. I consider "apprehensions" (equating that with desires) of the heart or mind as subjective to the individual and not based on the valid testimony of a witness or the confirmation of the Holy Ghost.
I do understand that many theologians believe the way you say they do. They believe differently from me and I believe them to be wrong. I consider neither the testimony of the witnesses or the confirmation of the Holy Ghost as mere apprehensions of the heart or mind. I consider "apprehensions" (equating that with desires) of the heart or mind as subjective to the individual and not based on the valid testimony of a witness or the confirmation of the Holy Ghost.
Aiviu
Active Member
Did i write faith is the prophecy of future events?
Last edited:
ether-ore
Active Member
No... you only used the word "future" in your comment, so that made me think of prophecy regarding its connection to faith.
ether-ore
Active Member
It seems to me that to say that faith is blind, is to equate it with superstition. From Dictionary.com, we have:
Superstition: noun;
1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, especially in connection with religion.
5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.
Faith is defined as:
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
4. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.
I thought it important to place these two definitions side by side so as to discuss the difference. To me, it becomes readily apparent that faith requires evidence whereas superstition does not. Superstition, as stated in items 1 & 5, is not based on reason... , but is based on blind acceptance. (The word 'knowledge' doesn't apply because faith is not based on knowledge but it is based on reason; (regardless of what Bill Maher says).
Whereas the definition of faith requires:
In item 1: Evidence that the person or thing in whom the confidence is placed can indeed be trusted. In this case, the persons in question are the prophets that have declared the reality of God over the millennia. I believe they can be trusted because they corroborate one another. This corroboration is the same that exists in peer review for scientists. Corroboration only requires the same results be stated. The method for arriving at those results may be a consideration for granting the quality of 'evidence', but that is not the definition of corroboration.
In item 2: Here is evidence that even atheists (in general) accept what scientists say on faith inasmuch as the scientist says that such hypotheses are justified based on 'some' evidence. No self respecting scientist would even form a hypothesis unless there were some evidence to suggest its probability even if that 'some' thing were his own reasoning.
In item 3. The evidence of history is appealed to here. Codes of ethics [morality] and standards of merit as these have had their impact on the rise and fall of nations validates their acceptance as evidence.
In item 4. See item 3; Since [most / some] religious beliefs have their tenets and doctrines based in natural law; that being a moral law, this is evidence that it comes under the heading of historical evidence. I do admit here that an interpretation of history in terms of the various doctrines of different religions becomes a factor. This is why I said 'most / some'.
Words have implicit meaning. Faith, by definition is not blind.
Superstition: noun;
1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, especially in connection with religion.
5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.
Faith is defined as:
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
4. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.
I thought it important to place these two definitions side by side so as to discuss the difference. To me, it becomes readily apparent that faith requires evidence whereas superstition does not. Superstition, as stated in items 1 & 5, is not based on reason... , but is based on blind acceptance. (The word 'knowledge' doesn't apply because faith is not based on knowledge but it is based on reason; (regardless of what Bill Maher says).
Whereas the definition of faith requires:
In item 1: Evidence that the person or thing in whom the confidence is placed can indeed be trusted. In this case, the persons in question are the prophets that have declared the reality of God over the millennia. I believe they can be trusted because they corroborate one another. This corroboration is the same that exists in peer review for scientists. Corroboration only requires the same results be stated. The method for arriving at those results may be a consideration for granting the quality of 'evidence', but that is not the definition of corroboration.
In item 2: Here is evidence that even atheists (in general) accept what scientists say on faith inasmuch as the scientist says that such hypotheses are justified based on 'some' evidence. No self respecting scientist would even form a hypothesis unless there were some evidence to suggest its probability even if that 'some' thing were his own reasoning.
In item 3. The evidence of history is appealed to here. Codes of ethics [morality] and standards of merit as these have had their impact on the rise and fall of nations validates their acceptance as evidence.
In item 4. See item 3; Since [most / some] religious beliefs have their tenets and doctrines based in natural law; that being a moral law, this is evidence that it comes under the heading of historical evidence. I do admit here that an interpretation of history in terms of the various doctrines of different religions becomes a factor. This is why I said 'most / some'.
Words have implicit meaning. Faith, by definition is not blind.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Amazing - you missed the only definition that is relevant in this context, the biblical definition. Sorry, but that is an ommission I think you made deliberately.
ether-ore
Active Member
That I do not agree with your interpretation of what that passage means does not indicate an omission on my part. What it does mean is that I consider your perceived definition, to be error, and that means I shouldn't cite what you believe. Actually, I believe it is you that is attempting to ignore what words mean in favor a preconceived notion of that which favors your world view. For you to have made the claim you made, is evidence that you completely ignored everything I said, never mind what the dictionary says concerning the meaning of words. We have language in the first place in order to convey ideas. When attempting to decipher scripture, it is not out of line to consult the dictionary.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Of course it was an omission - you left out the most appropriate definition for this context, the biblical definition.
LOL. 'Preconceived notion which favors my worldview' - meaning, the biblical definition.
But apparently it is out of line to consult the bible, huh?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Thief
Rogue Theologian
in meditation ....
Yes but we can base faith on evidence. Like when a jury says guilty based on evidence and their faith they are correct.
We trust friends initially as faith probably when they were labeled an aquaintence. Repeated trustworthiness still requires faith.
There are levels of faith needed proportional the level of ignorance.