|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#105125
02/16/07 22:22
02/16/07 22:22
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
He better be fair-handed and thorough, however, or I'm going to be sorely disappointed.
You're sounding pretty demanding, nothing wrong with that, but I find it kinda crazy considering what you take for granted based upon what, just your faith?  You claim your faith is not blind, still what makes this statement more than just a claim of yours? By the way, blind faith or not, he's right with the quote of "religion is based on Faith, not knowledge". If you believe otherwise, then where's your evidence and exactly which knowledge is your faith based upon?
By the way, blind faith is infact something that does get promoted by the bible, there are several passages that state things somewhat along the following lines; "those who have seen and believe are good, those who have not seen but still believe are even better". (better as in a better Christian)
Anyways, I suggest you to just read what he says and you'll be confronted with way more than just the arguments against (blind) faith. In the end it's good to read literature of both sides to eventually make up your mind and I'm not expecting you to change your view at all, eventhough personally I think Dawkins points are very legit,
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: AlbertoT]
#105127
02/17/07 06:52
02/17/07 06:52
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Really ? In my country they managed to cancel the research on embrions on the assumption that a group of cells is a human being
Apparently scientists have no problem believing that very thing.
Quote:
You're sounding pretty demanding, nothing wrong with that, but I find it kinda crazy considering what you take for granted based upon what, just your faith? You claim your faith is not blind, still what makes this statement more than just a claim of yours?
I wouldn't be a Christian if I didn't believe there was tangible evidence. If someone comes up to me tomorrow and tells me there's a palace in the clouds filled with happiness and sunshine, called Surubell, and they expect me to believe them, then they had better give me good reason to believe them.
That said, getting into the evidence for my faith is more than its own thread. It would be like me asking you to list the evidence for evolution. Even if you tried to sum it up a bit more vaguely, then I could always question each piece of evidence, and before you know it we'll have done all the work necessary to write a book.
Quote:
By the way, blind faith or not, he's right with the quote of "religion is based on Faith, not knowledge".
If you mean religion (ie Christianity) is based on blind faith, then Christianity would be no more valid than any other new age crock.
Quote:
By the way, blind faith is infact something that does get promoted by the bible, there are several passages that state things somewhat along the following lines; "those who have seen and believe are good, those who have not seen but still believe are even better". (better as in a better Christian)
I assume you mean John 20:29, which says: "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
-Firstly, the word used for 'blessed', based on the context, means something closer to "How honorable are..." (keeping in mind that the hebrews had a honor-shame culture similar to feudal Japan).
-So, think about all the evidence Thomas had. The resurrection of Lazarus-the miracles of Jesus, and now the testimony of 11 men who he really should have had no reason to doubt. He also had Jesus' word on the matter, which considering Jesus' life, really should have clinched the matter.
Jesus isn't saying, "Blessed is he who believes despite having no reason to." What He's essentially saying is, "Blessed is he who doesn't ask for excessive evidence."
As far as faith in the bible generally goes, understanding the culture and times of the biblical authors as little as I do, I still can't imagine them teaching a blind faith. I could go on and on about it, but here's someone who will do it much better than me, and who will be much more entertaining.
http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html
Quote:
If I am not wrong the "Apple tree " was the tree of knowledge
Adam and Eve did not commit any serious crime , not at least according to nowadays standard
They simply tried to improve their knowledge
Honestly I have alwayes found this part of the Bible quite embarassing
They gained the knowledge of what it was like to do something wrong, and this snowballs into humans murdering each other, until the world becomes so depraved and violent that God has to judge the entire earth. It was the knowledge, or perhaps one could say experience, of doing something wrong that got us in trouble. Once we had that knowledge, we were in trouble, but this doesn't speak of knowledge in general.
In fact, simplifying this by saying, "They simply tried to expand their knowledge" is taking this a bit too far.
They apparently were more than happy to believe God. It wasn't until the serpent lied to Eve that she wanted to eat the fruit. She lost her faith in what God had told her, and that was that.
Also, it was called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, not the Tree of Knowledge. There's a huge difference, and when you consider the context, there's an even bigger difference than a plain english reading of the name of the tree might suggest to some.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 02/17/07 06:54.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#105128
02/17/07 13:40
02/17/07 13:40
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
If you mean religion (ie Christianity) is based on blind faith, then Christianity would be no more valid than any other new age crock.
Indeed and no offense but this is true for Christianity too.
Quote:
Jesus isn't saying, "Blessed is he who believes despite having no reason to." What He's essentially saying is, "Blessed is he who doesn't ask for excessive evidence."
Yes, among other passages this is indeed the one I meant, however it's open to interpretation wether or not 'evidence' or 'excessive evidence' is meant here. Infact, it's rather unlikely because it says 'who have not seen', well why would you believe if you have no reason to believe because you haven't seen? The same goes if you already have seen some evidence, why not believe? So either they say you should have blind faith in other people's word ór they meant it's a good thing to believe without evidence. Basically that's what 'faith' in any religion stands for anyway.
Quote:
(keeping in mind that the hebrews had a honor-shame culture similar to feudal Japan).
In the feudal Japan (up to now to some extent btw) people often believed things purely based on blind faith because a.) someone old, wise and respected told that something was true and you don't question them or b.) eventhough people know that something is not true it has always been seen as a truth and you don't tamper with that idea because it's part of your great culture. Well, just look at world war II and Japan's role and it'll be instantly clear that I do not have to explain the dangers of such a mentality, let alone state the countless things that were part of their ideology but very untrue.
A honor-shame culture relies very heavily on blind faith of people, I'd even go as far as stating that it's worse because people accept things eventhough they know it's untrue,
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: PHeMoX]
#105129
02/17/07 17:50
02/17/07 17:50
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Indeed and no offense but this is true for Christianity too.
Of course, I'm sure that if I were to tell you that I believed evolution had little to no good evidence, it wouldn't move you in the least.
Quote:
Yes, among other passages this is indeed the one I meant, however it's open to interpretation wether or not 'evidence' or 'excessive evidence' is meant here.
No, its really not. This is one of the larger problems Christianity has: People think they can pull one verse, out of context, read it in plain english devoid of the same understanding that an ancient would have had, and call it a day.
Paul, arguably the biggest advocate for Christianity in the early church, was not in the habit of ignoring the evidence, and used evidence to argue for the faith. He didn't say, "Believe it, because you'll be blessed if you believe it in spite of the fact that we didn't give you any evidence."
I think its best to look at this passage, not only in light of what the entire bible has to say (see my link), but also based on the theological mindset of those who wrote the gospels. Otherwise you're just projecting your modern notions where they don't belong. No offense.
Quote:
Infact, it's rather unlikely because it says 'who have not seen', well why would you believe if you have no reason to believe because you haven't seen?
Because 'seeing' isn't the only evidence one could have.
Quote:
So either they say you should have blind faith in other people's word ór they meant it's a good thing to believe without evidence.
See, you're interpreting the passage beyond what it says. All it says is, "Those who believe but haven't seen." It doesn't say, "Those who believe, despite having no evidence." The early church spent much of its time telling its members to know why they believe, to understand their faith, and so forth. It isn't until recently that we've lost our grasp on such a concept.
So, both of us have to interpret the passage beyond what it says in order to fully grasp the meaning of it. I think it makes more sense to interpret it in light of their mindset, not ours.
Quote:
Basically that's what 'faith' in any religion stands for anyway.
If so, then you're right not to believe.
Quote:
In the feudal Japan (up to now to some extent btw) people often believed things purely based on blind faith because
Whoa! Slow down for a moment. All I said was that they had a similar honor-shame mindset, not that they had the same theological mindset. In fact, they differ quite a bit in that regard. You're taking the comparison way too far.
Quote:
a.) someone old, wise and respected told that something was true and you don't question them or b.) eventhough people know that something is not true it has always been seen as a truth and you don't tamper with that idea because it's part of your great culture. Well, just look at world war II and Japan's role and it'll be instantly clear that I do not have to explain the dangers of such a mentality, let alone state the countless things that were part of their ideology but very untrue.
You're preaching to the choir here. I would never advocate a blind faith, myself.
But you're still not understanding that just because I used Japan as a reference point for honor-shame, doesn't mean that the Hebrews were identical to them in every regard.
Quote:
A honor-shame culture relies very heavily on blind faith of people,
That's a non-sequitor if I've ever seen one. Read the bible, or if you want a more concise version then read that link, but as far as theology is concerned, honor-shame or not, the Hebrews were very different.
Honor-shame and blind faith don't have to go hand-in-hand.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#105132
02/18/07 14:54
02/18/07 14:54
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Honor-shame and blind faith don't have to go hand-in-hand.
Actually it does, simply because it's a matter of respect not to question anything.
Quote:
No, its really not. This is one of the larger problems Christianity has: People think they can pull one verse, out of context, read it in plain english devoid of the same understanding that an ancient would have had, and call it a day.
Right, that's exactly what religious people often do. They twist untill it suits them better. Isn't 'more honorable' equal to 'better person' anyways? Although perhaps not really synonimous, it's meaning in this context would be the same nonetheless, infact 'blessed' in generally comes very close to 'be or become a better person', so again the interpretation of the statement that seems to reward blind faith is legit. Not just when it's written in English,
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: PHeMoX]
#105133
02/18/07 16:46
02/18/07 16:46
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Actually it does, simply because it's a matter of respect not to question anything.
Not quite. You can question the establishment, but because its within an honor-shame paradigm you have to do it differently than we would.
For instance, the Hebrews had something called a challenge-riposte system where you would try and say the smartest/wittiest thing or whatever and if your opponent couldn't come back with anything better, then they would be shamed. In this way, you can question, and argue and so forth even in a public square, but you have to make sure it shames your opponent. Jesus was getting into these deals all the time, and He was so educated and intelligent that after a while people were too scared to even try. Mark 12:34
However, you have a problem here. The generally accepted truth was that Jesus was a false teacher. If He was asking people to believe blindly, with no evidence, then why "disrespect" the established opinion, unless one were to believe they had good reason to do so? If you're right, that you shouldn't question things, then that puts Jesus in an awkward position. Not only is He the one questioning things, but He's also asking people to believe His "disrespect" for no good reason. If it were that easy, then their culture probably would have been in trouble many times.
Fact of the matter is, the Hebrews apparently didn't believe in blind faith. They told the early church to give a reason for their faith, and at every possible opportunity they used evidence to give a case for their faith.
Their history with God was based on having reason to believe. Deuteronomy 29:6 says, "You have not eaten bread, nor have you drunk wine or similar drink, that you may know that I am the Lord your God." (In other words, God has taken care of their basic human needs which they were not able to take care of because of their circumstances.)
It doesn't say, "You have been told to believe in me that you may know that I am the Lord your God."
Exodus 7:5, "And the Egyptians shall know that I [am] the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them."
Exodus 7:17, "Thus saith the LORD, In this thou shalt know that I [am] the LORD: behold, I will smite with the rod that [is] in mine hand upon the waters which [are] in the river, and they shall be turned to blood."
There are many more verses, but the point is that the bible no where teaches that one is to believe for no good reason.
1 Peter 3:15, "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"
If you give the answer, "I believe it because its disrespectful to question faith, and you're just supposed to believe it just because," then that's a pretty useless answer.
Quote:
Right, that's exactly what religious people often do.
Yeah, tell me about it. Like Word of Faith preachers and so forth.
Of course, the worst of it always seems to come from skeptics.
Quote:
Isn't 'more honorable' equal to 'better person' anyways?
Not quite. Guilt is our social control in this society. There's was shame.
The point is, one was considered to attain honor, or be more honorable for believing, not because they had seen (no one would be able to see after that point), but because they had found other evidence.
Quote:
Although perhaps not really synonimous, it's meaning in this context would be the same nonetheless, infact 'blessed' in generally comes very close to 'be or become a better person', so again the interpretation of the statement that seems to reward blind faith is legit. Not just when it's written in English,
That still doesn't address the fact that Jesus was speaking in light of a person who had EVERY reason to believe, even if he hadn't seen Jesus. He had more evidence than everyone in the early church would have, and he still doubted.
In fact, what gets me is the huge amount of evidence he had to believe...Amongst which are the miracles, the empty tomb, etc. These things all were the evidence used by the early church to prove their faith, and they didn't have Jesus' presence. It would make sense that this would be addressed. Blessed are they who believe with the available evidence, and don't ask for the impossible (the presence of Jesus).
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#105134
02/18/07 17:48
02/18/07 17:48
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
However, you have a problem here. The generally accepted truth was that Jesus was a false teacher. If He was asking people to believe blindly, with no evidence, then why "disrespect" the established opinion, unless one were to believe they had good reason to do so? If you're right, that you shouldn't question things, then that puts Jesus in an awkward position. Not only is He the one questioning things, but He's also asking people to believe His "disrespect" for no good reason. If it were that easy, then their culture probably would have been in trouble many times.
It's very easy to convince people that they should have rights and properties and wealth when they do not have them, in a way Jesus simply 'promises' them better. Beggars, tramps, whores, low-lifes and mostly poor people were the initial targets so to speak Jesus was trying to convince.
In that society it was very obvious that having the largest part of the population believe in you would have a huge advantage and would be the only way to spread any ideas whatever they were and have power or influence or whatever Jesus' personal goal was. That is, if he even existed.
Hence it's not about who asked what, it's moreso about how people responded to Jesus' answers. Jesus said God loved everyone, promised everyone can go to heaven, beggars, whores and criminals too and so on and so forth. There's no evidence in favor of any of those messages, not now and not then, thus they still must have had blind faith. That's what religion is based upon.
Quote:
Fact of the matter is, the Hebrews apparently didn't believe in blind faith. They told the early church to give a reason for their faith, and at every possible opportunity they used evidence to give a case for their faith.
There's off course no historical evidence for this, infact when it comes to the early church there are enough things that make it more than legit to question the church's entire integrity right from the start. Like for example the voting on wether or not Jesus should be called 'son of God' and more very basic things like that. What about the other writings that are not part of the bible? The church simpy decided so, all to ensure their power probably.
In the end there's no reason to assume followers did not have blind faith in what was told, considering things like that slipped through without questions. If a church suddenly starts stating Jesus was the son of god then people must have had blind faith, otherwise they would have demanded proof,
Quote:
That still doesn't address the fact that Jesus was speaking in light of a person who had EVERY reason to believe, even if he hadn't seen Jesus. He had more evidence than everyone in the early church would have, and he still doubted.
In fact, what gets me is the huge amount of evidence he had to believe...Amongst which are the miracles, the empty tomb, etc. These things all were the evidence used by the early church to prove their faith, and they didn't have Jesus' presence. It would make sense that this would be addressed. Blessed are they who believe with the available evidence, and don't ask for the impossible (the presence of Jesus).
Especially the last sentence is a perfect example of why I know the bible and church's teachings are full of psychological and philosophical traps. It's way too easy to say 'hush, we are right and you shouldn't be asking for the impossible', when all that was done was ask a legit question or demand for real evidence. An empty tomb doesn't prove anything, especially not the story that Jesus ascended to heaven. It's like saying 'on that table over there once lay an apple that has fallen down and now lies on a stone' when all we can see is that table, no apple, no stone and we were not witnisses of the claimed event. Therefor even his demand for (you call it 'more') evidence was definately legit,
Cheers
|
|
|
|
