"Blind faith" versus "choosing to believe"

[quatona]

I've personally heard both responses, so someone didn't get the memo.

Then you may want to discuss it with the person who gave you both responses, or at least provide precise quotes. You also may want to consider the option that your interpretations (the parts you added to that which had been said) said were incorrect.

 

[JGG]

I've personally heard both responses, so someone didn't get the memo.

You've got me there. We all know that if any person in a religious demographic says something about anything it is effectively the view and opinion of all people in that religious demographic.

However, the rules also state that you need to provide a precise quote.

 

[JGG]

Why would you treat all of the multiple attestation testimonies that support the Resurrection any different than any other historical documents (which are also subjective evidences)? This looks like a priori bias against Christianity.

I would be forced to look at the claims of any other historical documents on a case by case basis. It's not as though we say "It's a historical document! Everything it says is valid and true!" So, what historical document would you like to compare it to?

 

[HitchSlap]

Thanks for admitting that we have evidence, although you believe it to be insufficient. Isn't that a subjective analysis?

Obviously not, because, you know, atheists.

 

[HitchSlap]

That's a strange use of the term "blind faith." Where did you get it from? It would also apply to many scientific theories (say, the Big Bang), where there is good evidence to support the theory, but insufficient evidence to make it 100% certain.

It's also different from the use of "blind faith" in the OP.

Well, I'm 100% certain of too many things. And two, if we discover better evidence that turns the BBT on it's head tomorrow, then I'll accept that too.
Why do you religious types need to always feel 100% certain about everything?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Why do you religious types need to always feel 100% certain about everything?

Dude. Magical Sky Father. Talking Snake. Resurrections. 40 Days and 40 Nights somehow covering more than 4 inches tops of the whole earth. Demon Pigs. Lakes of Fire. Raining Flaming balls of Sulfur. That's something they better believe 100%. You're in too deep if you believe even part of it, Might as well go all the way.

 

[Joshua260]

Fair enough to call it evidence at the least



Because it would give validation to every single other mythological story and based on resurrection and myth in general. If I believe Jesus rose from the dead then I very much can believe Bumba the Africa god of vomit, threw up the Earth one day after getting sick. I can believe Dionysus rose from the dead. I can believe Ra and the Sun Disk. I can't grant Christianity special pleading just because it's one of the few bronze age religions that survived. It gets no special privilege. Which is why I consider none of these myths real. They were all written by authors (who were credited unlike the bible) and told in a similar manner and they have just as much "evidence" proving them true as each other.

Does this make sense? I am only keeping myself honest here. I don't have a bias. To consider Christianity over every other religion would be a bias.

Good question, but I don't want to get off topic. I may discuss the evidence for the resurrection if you start a different thread. But my question was about why do you not treat the documents and testimonies surrounding the Resurrection like you would other historical documents? In other words, if we look at multiple attestation as evidence that corroborates an event in history, then why not treat the documents listed above in the same way? Instead, you to dismiss them outright. You seem to use the logic "the Resurrection didn't happen, therefore documents and testimonies that support the Resurrection are false", and that seems to be a priori bias.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Good question, but I don't want to get off topic. I may discuss the evidence for the resurrection if you start a different thread. But my question was about why do you not treat the documents and testimonies surrounding the Resurrection like you would other historical documents? In other words, if we look at multiple attestation as evidence that corroborates an event in history, then why not treat the documents listed above in the same way? Instead, you to dismiss them outright. You seem to use the logic "the Resurrection didn't happen, therefore documents and testimonies that support the Resurrection are false", and that seems to be a priori bias.

NO. They are not historical documents. They are historical literature. And I have no reason to consider them true. I'm not sure how you don't get it. I don't consider it true til proven false, it's false til proven true. And literature is not the best way to start off in proving anything.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Good question, but I don't want to get off topic. I may discuss the evidence for the resurrection if you start a different thread. But my question was about why do you not treat the documents and testimonies surrounding the Resurrection like you would other historical documents? In other words, if we look at multiple attestation as evidence that corroborates an event in history, then why not treat the documents listed above in the same way? Instead, you to dismiss them outright. You seem to use the logic "the Resurrection didn't happen, therefore documents and testimonies that support the Resurrection are false", and that seems to be a priori bias.

You're talking about the gospels, right? Basically 3 versions of the same event...that might have been written by 3 different people?

When you keep saying "multiple documents and testimonials" it sounds like there's a great deal of them that I don't know about.

There's several good reasons not to trust them...but you only need one of these reasons to dismiss them entirely. I'd tell you what that reason is, but I want to be sure you're talking about the gospels and not something else I don't know about.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

An atheist has decided to believe in unbelief. They generally believe in nonexistence ending existence, so by unbelieving they hope Hell is negated because it's existence cannot be proved to them as long as they are not in the fire. Atheists do not want to believe Jesus is God who loved them so much that he took their place in death, and in His bodily resurrection offers them forgiveness for their sins which they deserve to die for after He paid for them with His own blood. They know that if they believe the gospel and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in his resurrection and receive Him as their Savior He will completely change their lives by making them children of God, new creations to honor their Father, their Creator, their Savior. It's a willful choice of rejecting belief to believe in unbelief, thinking they will prove Hell is not real by becoming non-existent in death. If their belief was true, they would already be non-existent in death. The problem is that they exist and cannot prove they are not in death as they are dying and can't get out of it. Their whole believe system is self-contradictory believing death removes them from existence so they escape life unpunished in death, and as long as they live they believe they are escaping death temporarily, and then in death they believe they escape death and life permanently. It's nonsense, and for good reason the Bible so eloquently states in Psalm 14:1........."The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God"

They think they are negating God in their unbelief, when in reality they are only negating their own selves in death......and the sad part is that death and Hell will be cast into the Lake of Fire, where the smoke of their torments will rise forever.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

You're talking about the gospels, right? Basically 3 versions of the same event...that might have been written by 3 different people?

When you keep saying "multiple documents and testimonials" it sounds like there's a great deal of them that I don't know about.

There's several good reasons not to trust them...but you only need one of these reasons to dismiss them entirely. I'd tell you what that reason is, but I want to be sure you're talking about the gospels and not something else I don't know about.

There is no good reason not to trust Jesus Christ who is God the Creator who loved us so much that He took our place in death to give us His eternal life in His resurrection.
Pride is not a good reason for rejecting God's offer to save us from Hell.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

NO. They are not historical documents. They are historical literature. And I have no reason to consider them true. I'm not sure how you don't get it. I don't consider it true til proven false, it's false til proven true. And literature is not the best way to start off in proving anything.

The gospel of God in Jesus Christ who took your place in death and rose bodily from the grave offering you forgiveness for sinning against HIm, offering to save you from your sin, death, and Hell because He created you and loves you so much that He died in your place to save you from what you deserve, the same as me, Hell for our sins......

It will never be proven to you if you will not believe it, and if you believe it's too good to be true, maybe it's too late for you to change your mind and believe it.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Fair enough to call it evidence at the least



Because it would give validation to every single other mythological story and based on resurrection and myth in general. If I believe Jesus rose from the dead then I very much can believe Bumba the Africa god of vomit, threw up the Earth one day after getting sick. I can believe Dionysus rose from the dead. I can believe Ra and the Sun Disk. I can't grant Christianity special pleading just because it's one of the few bronze age religions that survived. It gets no special privilege. Which is why I consider none of these myths real. They were all written by authors (who were credited unlike the bible) and told in a similar manner and they have just as much "evidence" proving them true as each other.

Does this make sense? I am only keeping myself honest here. I don't have a bias. To consider Christianity over every other religion would be a bias.

.....................you are not making sense, you are only arguing in favor of your own eternal death and it's a losing argument. God is calling you, trying to get you to listen and believe Him and be saved from Hell and you are pretending to be smarter and stronger than God. You are not making sense.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

The atheist sees faith as blind because the atheist is blind and cannot see. All they see is death and they think they see life when all they have is death. They think they are living when in reality they are dying and the lines in their face increasing tell the truth of the matter. Somehow they believe that their dying changes to non-existence or anything other than a state of punishment like the dying they are in now.....it's sad, they can have eternal life but they insist that they won't so they won't

 

[SaintJoeNow]

This is true.

Trust, however, is belief based on evidence and prior experience.

You can know God personally. The evidence is there and He is there. To say you can't believe Him because of no prior experience is not true. You can have eternal life now if you will only A. admit you have sinned against God and deserve His punishment B. believe He loves you so much He became a man who took your place in death and paid for your sins and rose from the grave by His own power offering you forgiveness for your sins which He died for , and C. Call on God in the name of Jesus who died for you to save you and by faith receive Him as your Savior. Faith is the evidence, Faith is the victory. It's not too good to be true......God loves you

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Faith is belief without evidence.

Faith is acting in belief. When you sit down in your chair, you act in faith, believing the chair will hold you. When somebody gives you payment by check, you receive it believing it is good and by faith you take it to the bank. Faith is real. It is belief based on good reason.

The check you receive could prove your faith misplaced when it bounces.

We all act according to faith every day. You can believe God and be saved from Hell and have eternal life.......but you have to admit that you deserve to die because you have sinned against God. You have to act in faith toward God, for without faith it is impossible to please God. If you come to Him, you must believe that He is, and that He rewards those who diligently seek Him. If you seek Him, you will find Him if you seek Him with all of your heart, and when you find Him you will know Jesus is God who died for your sins and rose to justify all who believe on Him.

 

[HitchSlap]

Amen.

 

[ananda]

You can know God personally. The evidence is there and He is there. To say you can't believe Him because of no prior experience is not true. You can have eternal life now if you will only A. admit you have sinned against God and deserve His punishment B. believe He loves you so much He became a man who took your place in death and paid for your sins and rose from the grave by His own power offering you forgiveness for your sins which He died for , and C. Call on God in the name of Jesus who died for you to save you and by faith receive Him as your Savior. Faith is the evidence, Faith is the victory. It's not too good to be true......God loves you

If "faith is the evidence", then what if I say I have faith in the Buddha?

 

[SkyWriting]

They think they are negating God in their unbelief, when in reality they are only negating their own selves in death......and the sad part is that death and Hell will be cast into the Lake of Fire, where the smoke of their torments will rise forever.

Einstein would say that forever is a relative term. Likely "time" will not exist, so "forever" is not
defined just as we might use it today.

 

[SkyWriting]

If "faith is the evidence", then what if I say I have faith in the Buddha?

Buddha just gave advice. He never offered salvation or asked for any personal commitments.