Doesn't Christian salvation require blind faith?

[OnePointSix18]

Indeed, it's debatable who the one's who are 'blind' .. people who accuse believers in God of 'blind faith' do so because they are unable to see the truth of their existence .. ironic, really..

Please reread my opening question carefully so that it is not misinterpreted. I am not accusing anyone of "being blind". Clearly people have reasons for their belief. I just want to know how or if they understand Hebrews 11:1 and how that contrasts to what I have had to say about it. What do you think?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Clearly people have reasons for their belief. I just want to know how or if they understand Hebrews 11:1 and how that contrasts to what I have had to say about it. What do you think?

I think that faith IS belief in the unseen ie. Almighty God
I think that people have many good reasons for having faith in God .. Divine justice being just one of them. I wouldn't say that it was blind .. I would say that it's inspired.

 

[Unification]

Many Christians will claim that faith is the same as trust. Furthermore, many claim a nonbeliever has faith in science or his car is parked where he left it. This seems very problematic to me given the definition we find for faith is found in Hebrews 11:1; “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen”. In other words, your confidence IS the evidence offered for things that cannot be seen. Something intangible as the "confidence" one has in something, is the “evidence” for believing invisible things. Evidence is defined as: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". In what sense can someone justify confidence to equate to evidence and in what court would that reasoning stand?

Seen there isn't literally to see with your eyes.

It's realization or becoming aware or understanding of something you weren't yet aware of or hadn't realized. One must first believe and have faith in something before they pursue.

This thread and what you've said here is a perfect example of this:
"Many Christians will claim that faith is the same as trust."

Those particular Christians have the mindset that faith is trust. In order for you to assist in changing their minds, the Christian must first have a belief or faith that there is an alternative. The Christian pursues that alternative and later comes to see(understand/realize/become aware) that faith doesn't mean what they thought it did.

Another example...... someone is depressed, angry, and miserable. They've been for years. They know no other way.

They must first believe and have faith that they can overcome that depression, anger, and misery. They hope for a better way, without yet seeing the results. They hope for a life of change, peace, and happiness. Along their journey, more and more evidence of peace and happiness come along... the things that they hoped for are becoming more and more evident and seen.

One becomes liberated and set free from depression, anger, and misery only because they initially believed and had faith they can change rather than wallow with a hardened heart and mind in rumination.

I think faith has been butchered in many ways, it's been made out for one to believe in things not literally seen with literal eyes, such as deities, etc.

Which is contradictory, because the same texts tell them not to make idols or images of that stuff.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

You are confusing abiogenesis with evolution and your question is invalid.

And you also committing the fallacy of a false dichotomy. There are a great many believers that correctly accept the FACT of evolution.

The evidence for historical evolution is so overwhelming that is academia accepts this as fact. Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. The theory of evolution describes how natural mechanisms cause evolution. Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

There is no evidence that the universe was created by aliens, superhumans that live far into the future or any gods.

So, you put your "FAITH" in the men that teach evolution? What's the difference between you reading a book and saying, "evolution is the way it happened, it says so right here" and someone reading the Bible and saying, "creation is the way it happened, it says so right here"? You know how to research history books to validate their authenticity don't you? Research the history to authenticate the Bible. Biblical accounts and places have been proven to be correct.

 

[Neo Deist]

Many Christians will claim that faith is the same as trust. Furthermore, many claim a nonbeliever has faith in science or his car is parked where he left it. This seems very problematic to me given the definition we find for faith is found in Hebrews 11:1; “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen”. In other words, your confidence IS the evidence offered for things that cannot be seen. Something intangible as the "confidence" one has in something, is the “evidence” for believing invisible things. Evidence is defined as: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". In what sense can someone justify confidence to equate to evidence and in what court would that reasoning stand?

Does it require blind faith? Yes.

The same could be said of any religion that claims to have a deity. Since no one has ever been able to take a "selfie" with said deity, then the belief in one is purely blind without a shred of physical evidence.

 

[OnePointSix18]

So, you put your "FAITH" in the men that teach evolution? What's the difference between you reading a book and saying, "evolution is the way it happened, it says so right here" and someone reading the Bible and saying, "creation is the way it happened, it says so right here"? You know how to research history books to validate their authenticity don't you? Research the history to authenticate the Bible. Biblical accounts and places have been proven to be correct.

Let me start by assuming you are a reasonable person --- and --- you are willing to critically examine what I present. Furthermore, I will assume you want to hold onto as many truthfully justified things as possible and discard those things that are clearly in error. If this describes you then we are a great deal alike.

First we need to agree on what the words we are using mean. I am using the Hebrews 11:1 definition of faith. I believe that the biblical Paul and God (Yahweh) intend us to use the word faith to mean "having confidence in things that have no direct evidence".
From the entry of this thread I said:
Hebrews 11:1; “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen”. In other words, your confidence IS the evidence offered for t things that cannot be seen. Something intangible as the "confidence" one has in something, is the “evidence” for believing invisible things. Evidence is defined as: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid".
One of the problems I see to start off with is this; you are using the word, "Faith" to mean "trust", "trust that has evidence". It is not a problem as long as we agree on what the word means. So, in your words I do have faith in a lot of what people tell me and what I read. But the bible requires you to have Hebrews 11:1 faith. Since there is no evidence for let's say, an earth wide flood 4,000 years ago, then you have to have Hebrews 11:1 faith, that is faith without evidence.
Now the big problem here is there is a mountain of evidence AGAINST there ever being a flood that destroyed everything. As a matter of fact all modern theology agrees with that. They agree that there was no Ark, no Moses that wrote the Pentateuch, no Abraham and Isaac and so on.
You mentioned that there are places named in the bible but it is dreadfully wrong to conclude that because there was an Alexandria in Egypt and the bible say there were people in that Egyptian city, therefore, everything the bible says has been proved and is factual.
I have trust in the scientific method as a way of testing ideas and submitting the tentative conclusions of my research to everyone to examine. Science does NOT seek to PROVE ANYTHING. It is a process by which any one of us can refute any current fact of science and if we have better evidence we can replace that old model with the new and improved version. This is the most effective method for explaining what we observe about nature. Nothing exceeds this method.
The bible is a collection of very old sayings, songs, poems, manifestos, stories, allegories, and so on. It is not a history book. It is not a book that purports to be inerrant or infallible.

The burden of proof and evidence is mostly upon you to demonstrate to me, and required in 1 Peter 3:15. I look forward to your response.

 

[OnePointSix18]

Seen there isn't literally to see with your eyes.

It's realization or becoming aware or understanding of something you weren't yet aware of or hadn't realized. One must first believe and have faith in something before they pursue.

This thread and what you've said here is a perfect example of this:
"Many Christians will claim that faith is the same as trust."

Those particular Christians have the mindset that faith is trust. In order for you to assist in changing their minds, the Christian must first have a belief or faith that there is an alternative. The Christian pursues that alternative and later comes to see(understand/realize/become aware) that faith doesn't mean what they thought it did.

Another example...... someone is depressed, angry, and miserable. They've been for years. They know no other way.

They must first believe and have faith that they can overcome that depression, anger, and misery. They hope for a better way, without yet seeing the results. They hope for a life of change, peace, and happiness. Along their journey, more and more evidence of peace and happiness come along... the things that they hoped for are becoming more and more evident and seen.

One becomes liberated and set free from depression, anger, and misery only because they initially believed and had faith they can change rather than wallow with a hardened heart and mind in rumination.

I think faith has been butchered in many ways, it's been made out for one to believe in things not literally seen with literal eyes, such as deities, etc.

Which is contradictory, because the same texts tell them not to make idols or images of that stuff.

Thanks for the reply...I think you have given a great explanation for Christian faith and how they interpret this passage. I will say I read your reply several times and would like to see if there can be a better understanding of the passages meaning. The divergence occurs when the believer begins to "experience", (sense, have tangible evidence for) correlation with his expectation. He begins to sense things turn and go his way, i.e., remembering the hits and dismissing the misses. However it is at this point that he now has evidence, faith is no longer necessary.

 

[OnePointSix18]

I think that faith IS belief in the unseen ie. Almighty God
I think that people have many good reasons for having faith in God .. Divine justice being just one of them. I wouldn't say that it was blind .. I would say that it's inspired.

Instead of equating faith with belief, why do you not believe and use the biblical definition in Hebrews 11:1? Paul and God worked it out; all scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness ...

I do not disagree that people have what they consider to be "good reasons". They just don't stand up to common scrutiny. They "miss the mark". Please go back and reread what I opened this thread with and explain what is right or wrong with that. I joyously look forward to being found wrong. When that happens I benefit in so many ways. I get to stop saying the wrong thing; I get a new and improved concept to chew on. Believe me, when you find or have something you have been believing for a long time overturned by better evidence or understanding, it pulls on a thread that so many other things are connected to. Many times you have to go back and restitch things. Then when you look at it looks like a shirt with a short sleeve and a long one. Yes it can take a lot of fixing and maybe you will be without answers for a while. That's what keeps critical thinking interesting!

 

[George-ananda]

Many Christians will claim that faith is the same as trust. Furthermore, many claim a nonbeliever has faith in science or his car is parked where he left it. This seems very problematic to me given the definition we find for faith is found in Hebrews 11:1; “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen”. In other words, your confidence IS the evidence offered for things that cannot be seen. Something intangible as the "confidence" one has in something, is the “evidence” for believing invisible things. Evidence is defined as: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". In what sense can someone justify confidence to equate to evidence and in what court would that reasoning stand?

Well, I wouldn't call Christian faith completely 'blind faith'. There is considerable evidence through the saints and miracles that something at least not understood by science is indeed involved with Christianity. I personally believe what matters is the quality of our hearts and minds and not our beliefs on difficult metaphysical questions. Although not a Christian, I'm pro-Christianity,

 

[OnePointSix18]

Well, I wouldn't call Christian faith completely 'blind faith'. There is considerable evidence through the saints and miracles that something at least not understood by science is indeed involved with Christianity. I personally believe what matters is the quality of our hearts and minds and not our beliefs on difficult metaphysical questions. Although not a Christian, I'm pro-Christianity,

Well, I wouldn't call Christian faith completely 'blind faith'.
Nor would I. The question in the heart of this thread is; In what sense can someone justify confidence to equate to evidence and in what court would that reasoning stand?

Here is what I started this thread with:
Many Christians will claim that faith is the same as trust. Furthermore, many claim a nonbeliever has faith in science or his car is parked where he left it. this seems very problematic to me given the definition we find for faith is found in Hebrews 11:1; “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen”. In other words, your confidence IS the evidence offered for things that cannot be seen. Something intangible as the "confidence" one has in something, is the “evidence” for believing invisible things. Evidence is defined as: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". In what sense can someone justify confidence to equate to evidence and in what court would that reasoning stand?

The first evidence you claim, "There is considerable evidence through the saints..." is just that, an unsupported claim. That is not evidence. I have the dictionary definition in the thread opener above; Evidence is defined as: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid".
Are you thinking of the saints in Matthew where the Saints bodies that were resurrected? Let's look at this closely. (50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.) There is some "gobblely-gook" going on here with these resurrected bodies. The graves were opened, the saints "arose". They (a corpuscular re-assemblage of dust in the dirt into resurrected bodies) wait in their dirt filled graves or inside their tombs for a day and a half. They remain there through sun up Saturday, all day and all night Saturday and then on Sunday AFTER Jesus' body is resurrected, they go to town to be seen. Picture that, all those saints milling about in their opened graves and tombs for a day and a half and no one notices. There's been an earthquake, rocks were uplifted, tons of soil displaced, and those Saints were pacing back and forth inside these open tombs and holes in the ground and nobody notices?

As a matter of fact there is complete silence about Jesus and his miracles, his birth, death, trial, resurrection, his ministry, his exorcisms, or his sayings. The historians of the 1st century are completely silent. This was one of the most well documented timeS of ancient history! Here is a short list of contemporary historians that SHOULD HAVE NOTICED JESUS AND HIS MIRACLES, LIKE THE EARTHQUAKE AWAKENING THE DEAD SAINTS:
Philo-Judaeus, Seneca, Pliny the Elder, Suetonius, Juvenal, Martial, Persius, Plutarch, Justus of Tiberius, Apollonius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus,
Quintilian, Lucanus, Epictetus, Silius Italicus, Statius, Ptolemy, Hermogenes, Valerius Maximus, Arrian, Petronius, Dion Pruseus, Paterculus, Appian, Theon of Smyrna, Phlegon, Pompon Mela, Quintius Curtius, Lucian, Pausanias, Valerius Flaccus, Florus Lucius, Favorinus, Phaedrus, Damis, Aulus Gellius, Columella, Dio Chrysostom, Lysias, Appion of Alexandria, Philo of Alexanderia and MORE.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

@OnePointSix18 Boy, you sure are too smart for me, using all those $25 words and such. I guess you can use your human wisdom and put your faith in mans idea that our complex bodies came from a one cell amoeba or something. I'll just keep my little ol' faith and mosey on down the road. I can't debate with you scientists, but I can talk with Jesus, so that's what I will do!

 

[First Baseman]

NO. The Christian's faith is based on facts. There is no blind faith in Christianity.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

What is the MOST compelling thing that brings you to this conclusion?

The facts are facts. Amino acids became genetic codes which became organelles/protocells which became ... etc, etc. While I don't mind the atheist notion that it is purely physical, I feel there is a divine spark to life, as it were.

That being said, one wonders if Yahweh created the heavens and earth at all. After all, Yahweh is later revealed in flashback to go to the Council of El to talk about how lazy the other gods are. Yahweh isn't the creator in the original pantheon, so ...

Perhaps in some lower forms of life there could have been some evolution involved. (?)
But as far as Man, man was from earth's clay. Man was inanimate before God breathed ' the breath of life ' into lifeless Adam - Genesis 2:7
Adam went from non-life - to alive adult life - and then ' returned ' back to non-life - Genesis 3:19
God speaking and God breathing.

You would think that if you cut us, we'd look like dirt. We don't. We are organic mammalian vertebrates. We bleed just like a kitten or a fly or a lobster.

So, you put your "FAITH" in the men that teach evolution? What's the difference between you reading a book and saying, "evolution is the way it happened, it says so right here" and someone reading the Bible and saying, "creation is the way it happened, it says so right here"? You know how to research history books to validate their authenticity don't you? Research the history to authenticate the Bible. Biblical accounts and places have been proven to be correct.

We can do experiments. The bible just wants you to believe it. What's funny is that Job is teased specifically by God regarding knowing about creation. As it's a fair bet Job would've been a creationist and not a believer in evolution, the fact that God is deriding his knowledge is amusing, no?

 

[George-ananda]

Well, I wouldn't call Christian faith completely 'blind faith'.
Nor would I.

Well, I was quoting your thread title.

The question in the heart of this thread is; In what sense can someone justify confidence to equate to evidence and in what court would that reasoning stand?

I agree there is valid criticism of those Bible verses. But I am saying that is not how most Christians actually reason. They have also heard of many things and miracles not explainable by material science occurring in the context of Christianity. I do believe the higher beings give real signs that the believers' faith is not in vain.

The first evidence you claim, "There is considerable evidence through the saints..." is just that, an unsupported claim. That is not evidence. I have the dictionary definition in the thread opener above; Evidence is defined as: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid".

Miracles are certainly evidence. You are confusing the word 'evidence' with 'proof'.

Are you thinking of the saints in Matthew where the Saints bodies that were resurrected?

No, I was not thinking about that at all. I was talking about miracles and experiencing that have happened through Christian figures and saints throughout history and into modern times.

 

[OnePointSix18]

Well, I was quoting your thread title.

I agree there is valid criticism of those Bible verses. But I am saying that is not how most Christians actually reason. They have also heard of many things and miracles not explainable by material science occurring in the context of Christianity. I do believe the higher beings give real signs that the believers' faith is not in vain.


Miracles are certainly evidence. You are confusing the word 'evidence' with 'proof'.


No, I was not thinking about that at all. I was talking about miracles and experiencing that have happened through Christian figures and saints throughout history and into modern times.

If I claim to witness someone being levitated up to the clouds and back down, how is that "claim" evidence for you? The answer is that it ain't. It is just a claim. If you believe it, well then you are now using the Heb. 11:1 version of "faith" and it is ONLY in this Christian sense that it could be evidence, i.e., confidence in something that cannot be sensed. In the real world we rely on real evidence for everything. When we investigate a car accident we can piece together what likely happened. We use tools like physics to determine the car's speed based on the car's weight, friction of the road surface and length of the skid marks. All those things add up to "evidence" that explains what happened. A "miracle" has no explanatory power, no explanation and is unfalsifiable. A miracle cannot be evidence for something.

What about the resurrection of the saints? Why not address that miracle? It is as good as any in the bible. You restate the object of your point to be the other saints and Christian figures, but with my explanation of how miracles cannot be evidence in view, are you going to incorrigibly maintain that miracles are evidence? If so, then why?

 

[OnePointSix18]

The facts are facts. Amino acids became genetic codes which became organelles/protocells which became ... etc, etc. While I don't mind the atheist notion that it is purely physical, I feel there is a divine spark to life, as it were.

That being said, one wonders if Yahweh created the heavens and earth at all. After all, Yahweh is later revealed in flashback to go to the Council of El to talk about how lazy the other gods are. Yahweh isn't the creator in the original pantheon, so ...


You would think that if you cut us, we'd look like dirt. We don't. We are organic mammalian vertebrates. We bleed just like a kitten or a fly or a lobster.


We can do experiments. The bible just wants you to believe it. What's funny is that Job is teased specifically by God regarding knowing about creation. As it's a fair bet Job would've been a creationist and not a believer in evolution, the fact that God is deriding his knowledge is amusing, no?

Yes Yahweh has the all the attributes of a war god, particularly when using the Documentary Hypothesis of the OT to align which god did what.

I would encourage those who think there is some supernatural "code designer" behind things to dig into the natural mechanisms for what us, pattern seeking beings, see. No supernatural spark has been indicated as either sufficient or necessary.

 

[George-ananda]

If I claim to witness someone being levitated up to the clouds and back down, how is that "claim" evidence for you? The answer is that it ain't. It is just a claim. If you believe it, well then you are now using the Heb. 11:1 version of "faith" and it is ONLY in this Christian sense that it could be evidence, i.e., confidence in something that cannot be sensed. In the real world we rely on real evidence for everything. When we investigate a car accident we can piece together what likely happened. We use tools like physics to determine the car's speed based on the car's weight, friction of the road surface and length of the skid marks. All those things add up to "evidence" that explains what happened. A "miracle" has no explanatory power, no explanation and is unfalsifiable. A miracle cannot be evidence for something.

What about the resurrection of the saints? Why not address that miracle? It is as good as any in the bible. You restate the object of your point to be the other saints and Christian figures, but with my explanation of how miracles cannot be evidence in view, are you going to incorrigibly maintain that miracles are evidence? If so, then why?

I did say I wasn't even discussing the miracles in the Bible. I was talking about events and experiences even into modern times. Miracles and many types of paranormal events are evidence that something beyond our understanding is indeed real. And when some of these miracles involve around religious figures this is evidence that something may be going on with this Christianity that is indeed real. That is evidence supporting Christian belief. I have been a student of paranormal phenomena for decades and believe beyond all reasonable doubt things really do occur that force us to expand our view of reality.

So my point was that there is evidence beyond just blind faith.

 

[OnePointSix18]

I did say I wasn't even discussing the miracles in the Bible. I was talking about events and experiences even into modern times. Miracles and many types of paranormal events are evidence that something beyond our understanding is indeed real. And when some of these miracles involve around religious figures this is evidence that something may be going on with this Christianity that is indeed real. That is evidence supporting Christian belief. I have been a student of paranormal phenomena for decades and believe beyond all reasonable doubt things really do occur that force us to expand our view of reality.

So my point was that there is evidence beyond just blind faith.

In all your years of studying paranormal phenomena can you give me any evidence that anything paranormal has ever occurred, other than anecdotal hearsay? As the teacher says, "please show your work". Btw, there is a million dollar prize waiting for anyone that can use their ESP to produce a result of 51% or greater. You can collect your well deserved prize money from the James Randi Foundation @ http://web.randi.org/

 

[George-ananda]

In all your years of studying paranormal phenomena can you give me any evidence that anything paranormal has ever occurred, other than anecdotal hearsay? As the teacher says, "please show your work". Btw, there is a million dollar prize waiting for anyone that can use their ESP to produce a result of 51% or greater. You can collect your well deserved prize money from the James Randi Foundation @ http://web.randi.org/

We each must look for ourselves and form our own objective conclusion. I have and found the evidence overwhelming. As a normal part of an objective consideration of everything on the subject, I am aware of all the pseudo-skeptical arguments and posturing in considerable detail too.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hebrews 11:1 does not appear to me to be trying to say "we all have faith and believe in something".

I have posited the claim that I think the Hebrews verse clearly makes the case that one's "conviction of belief" IS one's "evidence" for that belief. Brickjectivity claims there is no faith separate from action, but, the willingness to believe without anything more than the conviction to believe, WITHOUT EVIDENCE OTHER THAN THE CONVICTION ONE HAS TO BELIEVE is what one has to start with. Empirically speaking, no evidence.

You are confusing abiogenesis with evolution and your question is invalid.

And you also committing the fallacy of a false dichotomy. There are a great many believers that correctly accept the FACT of evolution.

The evidence for historical evolution is so overwhelming that is academia accepts this as fact. .

just like classical physics, which was similarly posited to 'make God redundant' by providing a complete explanation of physical reality- leaving no gaps for 'superstitious nonsense' like deeper unpredictable guiding forces- and based on THE CONVICTION ONE HAS TO BELIEVE

It's hardly a coincidence that Max Planck was a staunch skeptic of atheism-

Again we all have convictions to believe in something, whether we acknowledge it or not determines whether or not our faith is blind, whether or not we claim 'FACT' over faith, whether or not we follow the scientific principle that nothing is beyond question