Talk:Blind faith

Please add to this list. Blind faith is a tragic thing. EVDebs 00:26, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Two boats and a helicopter?[edit]

What in the world is this referring to? Is it some kind of in-joke? The only situation I can think of when two boats and a helicopter would be even tangentially related to divine intervention is if they were rescuing someone lost at sea or something, and in that case the association with divine intervention would depend on how hard the victim was being searched for. The bullet also seems to be implying that these mysterious boats and aircraft always constitute divine intervention in their unspecified situation, and that to *not* believe so constitutes blind faith? Does anyone else find that bullet completely non-nonsensical? 66.227.95.241 17:03, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

As I recall, it refers to an anecdote about a flood victim refusing to be rescued by, in turn, two boats and a helicopter, each time because she believed that God would send some miracle to rescue her instead. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:06, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Pretty much, though as I originally heard it in Leo Rosten's The Joys of Yiddish, it was a very pious if somewhat dim rabbi. The "two boats and a helicopter" line was the rabbi getting chewed out by a rather peeved God. EVDebs 12:36, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Yup, it sure was unclear. All I thought of when I read it is Katrina. But I had heard the joke... the punchline runs basically to - Rabbi: "God, why did you abandon me?" God: "I sent you two boats and a helicopter, what more did you want?" human

12:55, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Respect please[edit]

I cryed when I read this article. How can people think themselves to be so intelligent and yet be so misguided? Do you not know “Faith is the evidence of the things not seen.” Only with Faith can we truly learn the truth of Gods’ Great Plan being Worked Out Here Below. Only with the power of Faith can we truly Overcome the Travails and Temptations of this life. Faith has indeed “moved mountains” and Inspired people to wonderful acts of selflessness; it gives peace to the troubled; it gives sucker to the bereaved. Let us respect those who have it and celebrate our diferences.^{— Unsigned, by: 78.47.210.78 / talk / contribs}

Sorry, I've been told to "Fuck Off" for giving my opinion on this sort of thing in the past! (Pity faith doesn't assist speelinj) SusanG 13:41, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

It doesn't matter what people say to sister. the Lord knows what is in your heart. Tell the truth and you will be rewarded. ^{— Unsigned, by: 78.47.210.76 / talk / contribs}

Thanks for the permission (I'm not your sister BTW) , Why don't you go and join some of the godbotherers on Conservapedia where all the loonies hang out? SusanG 13:50, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Looks like psrodt to me, Susan. The Real Thing would know how to spell succor. Spelling it wrong is the key to the joke. human

13:58, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

See User:Tolerence SusanG 14:02, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I assure you I am utterly Serious. Please do not belittle my spelling - what matters are my words.

Your words only matter if they are at least unambiguous. Your mis-spelled user name, for instance, is easy to see as an attempt to type "Tolerance" - and so could simply be a typo. "sucker" for "succor" is simply the wrong word, and as used above, is clearly parody of the rest of the statements. Giving sucker to the bereaved? Come on now! But, I do appreciate your having signed up. human

19:22, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

"Evidence of things not seen" (presumably "seen"="observed in any way at all", or such an assertion makes no sense) is no kind of evidence at all. EVDebs 20:01, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I refer to Hebrews 11:1 of the King James Version "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." I thought it wouyld be familiar to veryone. Tolerance 14:24, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Just because it's in the Bible does not make it correct. In any case, "substance of things hoped for" actually sounds more or less accurate, though maybe not in the way you're expecting. As for "evidence of things not seen", I could have faith that the universe is held together by the presence of a green golf ball on a course in Bradenton, Florida. I could be completely sincere about that, as said green golf ball would, in more ways than one, be a thing "not seen". But my faith in such a thing is completely irrelevant to whether it is actually true; therefore, as I said, it is no evidence at all. EVDebs 15:02, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

It's meant as a simile. The writer of Hebrews doesn't mean that faith is the same as evidence, but rather that faith is to the unseen things what evidence is to those that are seen. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:29, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Tolerance seemed to be quoting it literally, and I responded in kind. In any case, even taken as an analogy, it's still wrong, possibly even meaningless. EVDebs 15:44, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

elegchos may also be translated as 'conviction' instead of 'evidence'. hypostasis can be translated as 'foundation' instead of 'substance' Try this translation - "Now faith is the foundation for things hoped for, the conviction for things unseen." To which I say "yep" - that is what faith is. A nice commentary on the passage can be found here. "At the beginning of this section, the author defines faith as the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen (elpizomenôn hupostasis, pragmatôn elegchos). This definition amounts to saying that faith is belief without sufficient evidence. As such faith could be described as a type of circular reasoning. ... To say that faith is the "evidence" (elegchos) of things unseen is to say that faith, in the sense of confidence or assurance, is proof that the object of faith will appear, for faith brings its object into existence." -- Eghads, that sounds like the Secret. --Shagie 15:48, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

In my opinion it's being in The Bible makes it automatically correct. but I undrestand that you do not share my beliefs.Tolerance 15:05, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

You're entitled to your opinion; however, you would have to find a way to corroborate your statement without using the Bible in order for it to be in any way useful for us. It seems unlikely that you'll be able to do so when centuries of Christian theologians have failed to convince the non-Christians and faithless of the world, but you're free to try. EVDebs 15:07, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

(edit conflict)You're almost there. If your opinion is required for something to be a fact, then it can't exactly be a fact, can it? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 15:10, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

By claiming that the Bible is automatically correct, you are asking for tolerance for Christian beliefs? Is there room for tolerance for those of Hindu? or Native American? or Islam? or Buddhist? Atheist? Claiming that your book is correct and everyone else must accept it and not infringe upon what it says is the height of intolerance. --Shagie 15:21, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I know it to be correct, but I quite prepared to be tolerant of others Beliefs, as I would expect them to be tolerant of mine. I understand they think they are Right and that they think I am wrong. Tolerance 17:13, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

I know you are wrong when you think the Bible is correct. Tolerance? Yes. Respect? Sorry, but no.

Genghis ^Marauding 18:07, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't spam my stuff here, much, at all, but here is a "pre-blog" thing I wrote in 2002 that is tangentially related to this topic. human

20:47, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Pretty much says it all, Human.

Genghis ^Marauding 02:57, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Tolerance, I think that you need to consider that the word "blind" in this article is the key one of the two in "blind faith". --Edgerunner⁷⁶ _{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 13:56, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Tolerance[edit]

Tolerance, do you truly understand the magnitude of the staement you made? Do you understand the weight of stating that you believe everything in the Bible is automatically correct? As a very quick example, do you accept that many crimes should be punished by public stoning? This is just one of many problems with a blanket statement like that. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ _{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 15:13, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Also, what about the small matter of Jesus having two quite different and mutually exlusive genealogies? --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Or, indeed, the two separate and quite different accounts of Creation in Genesis? Zmidponk 17:34, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

The tow genealogies for Christ is easy. One for MAry and one for Joseph. http://www.geocities.com/cobblestoneministries/2006/GenealogiesofJesusInMatthew1andLuke3.html The difference between Gen 1 and two is more complex and does not lend itself to a simple response. See here . http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2194 Tolerance 12:58, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Just to address the Genesis link (I haven't actually looked at the genealogies one), first of all, that simply suggests the Bible is so complicated and obtuse that you cannot easily say all the Bible is true in a straightforward manner - you have to put all sorts of interpretations and twistings onto the 'Holy Word of God'. Secondly, it does not actually deal with all the contradictions. Indeed, it seems to leave the most direct and telling ones completely out. For example, the first Creation clearly depicts the Earth as starting as, basically, a vast sea (Genesis 1:2 and 1:6-7). The second one just as clearly depicts the Earth as starting as a vast, barren land with no water whatsoever, before this is rectified by a 'mist' rising from the ground (Genesis 2:5-6). There is also the Creation of Woman. In the first Creation, Man and Woman are created at the same time and remain nameless (Genesis 1:27). In the second, Man is created immediately after the Earth, then everything else is created, before God rips out the rib of the man (who is called Adam, in this account) and creates Woman from that (who still remains nameless, at this point, but Adam gives her the name Eve in Genesis 3:20). The arguments posed in that link are also somewhat weak in places. For example, in the first Creation, it is very, very, very clear that Man is the last thing God created. In the second, it is very, very, very clear that Man was the first thing created after the Earth itself. That link only obliquely addresses this by referencing various arguments to explain another contradiction, the timeline of the creation of plants and trees, but simply dismisses this by saying, 'The real problem exists only in the mind of the critic. There are possible means by which to resolve the alleged difficulty', before then expounding on some of these explanations by doing the very thing it accuses the 'liberal critics' of the Bible of doing elsewhere in the piece - reading things that aren't there. There's a few other points as well, but I trust that illustrates that things don't seem so simple as you appear to believe? Zmidponk 14:56, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

What about public stoning as a criminal punishment? --Edgerunner⁷⁶ _{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 13:08, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Much of the Old Testament law was superseded by Jesus's message of Peace and Love. That's why most Christians do not believe in stoning people.Tolerance 13:18, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

How much, exactly? For something to be correct and infallible, it must also be clear and precise. human

13:39, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Obviously the Ritual went (but then, so did the temple) and also many laws. It's somewhat complicated. Perhaps you would like the read the (relativity) unbiased WP article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant

I'll give that a browse when I get back from my meetings - thanks! human

13:57, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

(undent) I get where all of this is coming from (I read through the wikipedia article), but it seems far too nebulous and fluid to me. In my opinion, this just leads to Cafeteria Christians. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ _{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 14:06, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

I didn't see any answers to my questions there. human

22:20, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

This tension between the Old and the New Testament is very interesting. If Jesus replaced the Old Testament view of an angry god with one of a loving, fogiving and merciful god, why the emphasis placed by fundamentalist and avangelical Christians on punishment of the wicked and the "sinful" nature of homosexuality, for example? Why the emphasis on the Ten Commandments rather than on the Sermon on the Mount? Why the emphasis on obscure passages in the Old Testament regarding masturbation and "sodomy" instead of sticking to the actual words of Jesus? Rational Ed^evidence 09:59, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Antichrist[edit]

This is the moat anti-christain garbage I ahve ever read. ^{— Unsigned, by: 217.172.33.60 / talk / contribs}

Yes, after all, faith is a uniquely Christian concept. To hell with those other religions. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Fish can wish} 09:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Htat si tehj moat blady speeld comemnt iv evr red. ^Contribs_Talk 09:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)