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."