It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do all Christians have blind faith?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: undo

Well I think it's pretty clear that those who agree they walk by faith and not by sight are walking with blind faith. Someone who does not have sight is blind so someone who walks by faith alone is blind faith.
edit on 2/14/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 01:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
God says this in Isaiah:


Isaiah 6
10 Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed."


Jesus also echoes this sentiment in Matthew 13.

God implies that in order to be healed, you must see with your eyes and hear with your ears and that those who are not healed have their eyes closed.

Paul says this in 2 Corinthians:


2 Corinthians 5
7 for we walk by faith, not by sight.


If Christians walk by faith and not by sight, doesn't that mean they walk with blind faith? If they do not use sight in their walk then they have their eyes closed, those with their eyes closed are not healed according to Isaiah.

Is this an implication that Christians are not healed by God? What do you guys think?

Please keep discussion civil, we are here to exchange ideas, not talk down to others. Thanks.


Nowhere does the bible teach Christians blind faith, it teaches faith in spite of reality.
The bible teaches its ok to question God.
Where does blind faith come from?
Why do you understand Christians need blind faith?



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

"We walk by faith and not by sight", it's pretty self-explanatory really.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 01:30 AM
link   
a reply to: undo

Yes I see your point about religious experience.

There is a problem inherent to that Undo.

People of varying religions have claimed a direct mystical experience to the divine. Throughout our religious history there have been people that claim to have experienced something that affirmed their faith. Many religions. Many creators gods. Many creation stories. Why give credence to one and not the other? If we gave credence to all these religious people throughout history claiming that then we would be left with the understanding there is potentially multiple creator gods and multiples ways this Universe was made and in the order in which things occurred. That doesn't add up. Either it's all not truthful or one religion has it right. So understanding that, what reason should we favor the alleged mystical experience of one religious group over another?
edit on 14-2-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

you can't presume a favored position to have in that regard, until you have your own experience, otherwise you'd be basing it on something you have no idea about. if you're asking me to sit in judgement of other people's experiences, i won't do it. i can't do it, as i have nothing to base my belief on, only that the belief i do have, has experience backing it up.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
It is an act of trust.
Obviously a conspiracy site, full of congenitally suspicious people, hates the very idea of trust.
But if you're going to attach an acccusatory label to the fact that Christians trust God, the reply is going to have to be- "What of it?"



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: undo


you can't presume a favored position to have in that regard, until you have your own experience


Yet I have had a profound mystical experience
A very profound one. It was religiously agnostic. It gave no reason to believe in any religion.


otherwise you'd be basing it on something you have no idea about.


I also got my degree in philosophy with an emphasis in religion. You can argue I lack the spiritual conviction to understand scripture but I do not lack the knowledge academically.


if you're asking me to sit in judgement of other people's experiences, i won't do it. i can't do it, as i have nothing to base my belief on, only that the belief i do have, has experience backing it up.


You might have missed my point. I am saying that if you do warrant belief in all their experiences then there is a theological problem inherit to that. Your earlier point was about religious people having mystical experiences, yes? My point is that people of many faiths have them! They conflict on fundamental levels theologically. So if you give credence to all those religious people claiming such experiential knowledge of the Divine you have to [intellectually] acknowledge the blatant discrepancies therein.
edit on 14-2-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

hahaha!!

You know I never thought of it that way...

perhaps the one thing everyone here has in common is distrust in something... whether it be religion or the government, police or politicians

Good one man

edit on 14-2-2015 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 01:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

i think, biblically, it would depend on the extent of understanding you have on the subject of mystical experiences. saul had mystical experiences, but was still not on god's happy happy joy joy list. old testament texts reveal there are many gods, but only one "true god", which means that other gods are available to give one a mystical experience, but they aren't "in charge". the problem there is, the guy in charge of the planet seems to be the bad guy (satan), not the creator god, otherwise known as the guy who rescued humans from total annihilation (more than once, apparently).

biblical esoterica has a version of this that is totally twisted up in knots, resolving down to them believing the very guy they claim to disdain. and the guy they claim to worship is in fact, the opposite of what they think, although they manage, as christians and jews do, to hit on the correct god in old testament references, if however briefly. it's all tangled up, in a very ingenious way. this however, doesn't mean they aren't having mystical experiences and that frequently, those mystical experiences are associated with jesus.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

I don't hate the idea of trust, I just don't think you put your trust in the right place. You probably think I put my trust in the wrong place as well, does that mean you hate the idea of trust too? Of course not.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 02:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
God says this in Isaiah:
Isaiah 6
10 Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed."

Isaiah 6
10 Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed."


Jesus also echoes this sentiment in Matthew 13.

God implies that in order to be healed, you must see with your eyes and hear with your ears and that those who are not healed have their eyes closed.

Paul says this in 2 Corinthians:


2 Corinthians 5
7 for we walk by faith, not by sight.


If Christians walk by faith and not by sight, doesn't that mean they walk with blind faith? If they do not use sight in their walk then they have their eyes closed, those with their eyes closed are not healed according to Isaiah.

Is this an implication that Christians are not healed by God? What do you guys think?

Please keep discussion civil, we are here to exchange ideas, not talk down to others. Thanks.


Okay here's some context to highlight the absurdity. In Isaiah 6 he was relating his vision which was his earlier call into the prophetic ministry. Isaiah was a prophet. The healinghealing spoken of was a spiritual healing and the people turning back to God, not a physical healing. God was warning Isaiah that his ministry, for the most part, would fall on deaf ears. Context means a lot. It's not fair to take any one sentence out of any book and build on just that sentence without taking it all into context. That's where reading the Bible and praying for understanding comes in. There is so much wisdom to be had there.
edit on 2 by AreUKiddingMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 02:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: borntowatch

"We walk by faith and not by sight", it's pretty self-explanatory really.


Faith and blind faith are two entirely different things, care to elaborate on how you can confuse them?



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: AreUKiddingMe

I never said it wasn't spiritual healing he was talking about, in fact I agree it is talking about spiritual healing.

Isaiah's ministry falling on deaf ears is the entire point of this thread, that Jesus' ministry has also fallen on deaf ears, being misinterpreted by the church and force fed to believers as the truth.


Isaiah 6
6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 With it he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”


If God could atone for sins before Jesus' sacrifice then why was Jesus' sacrifice necessary? Why didn't he just touch a coal to everyone's lips and atone for their sins that way? Instead of having his son tortured, he could have saved his son (himself?) that pain and suffering. Or was that outside of his abilities?

If people in the OT were saved by belief in God (faith), then why was Jesus' sacrifice necessary? Obviously Jesus' sacrifice wasn't needed for their atonement, so why change it?
edit on 2/14/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Read it again. Blind means no sight. Those who walk by faith and NOT sight are walking by blind (no sight) faith.

Very simple concept, very easy to understand, and very self-explanatory.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 02:58 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Again, this was a vision, and not meant to be taken literally, but symbolically. In the OT blood sacrifices of animals atoned for sins, along with harsh and strict punishments for even smaller sins. Because of the fall of man, and because of Satan, the fallen angel also called Lucifer, man continued to become more evil. The only hope for man to regain communion with the Creator and be forgiven was through the redemptive sacrifice of God's own son, literally and symbolically. For a better answer maybe someone else or ask an expert. If you don't want to understand, you won't, and if you do understand, you will.

It's kind of like english class in school. We could spend all day asking why we pronounce certain words with similar spellings different ways, and why some letters are silent.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: undo


i think, biblically, it would depend on the extent of understanding you have on the subject of mystical experiences.


Well no. That has been my entire point. It shouldn't be dependent on the understanding of the Bible. Again, mystical experience has been a part of peoples experiences beyond Christianity. My point yet again is that there is no reason to value one over another. If one person has a mystical experience that for them affirms their faith in the Egyptian god's then why should we value that experience less than the experience of those that share your particular faith? Do you get what I am asking? I don't wan't to sound redundant or patronizing, it's just I feel you haven't acknowledged these points.


old testament texts reveal there are many god


Indeed. I wasn't confining the conversation to this, though I suppose the OP was. No the many gods I was evoking towards my arguments transcended the Abrahamic faiths.


but only one "true god", which means that other gods are available to give one a mystical experience, but they aren't "in charge"


I don't understand this Undo. Paraphrase for me.


the problem there is, the guy in charge of the planet seems to be ...


No. Let me stop you there. The problem is deeper, simple, and direct. Genesis makes claims about the known physical Universe, and we know they are not truthful. Genesis says ALL stars were made after Earth. That couldn't be more contrary to cosmology.


biblical esoterica has a version of this that is totally twisted up in knots,


I don't know if you remember me. I remember you. I both love and appreciate your interpretations. You're one of my favorite female ATS members. You always have been. Yet, I am a logical persona and I have zero tolerance for things illogical

edit on 14-2-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 03:58 AM
link   
I dont think I have "blind faith" in that God is real, I just have Blind Faith that he knows what to do next.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 04:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Punisher75

Do you think you have blind faith towards that particular god? Not that god exists. Towards that specific religious belief in that religious god and the scripture surrounding it.
edit on 14-2-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 04:05 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Eyup

For me becoming a Christian was not and still isn't blind faith.

I will admit that just very by prior to becoming a Christian on my knees and begging Jesus to forgive me it was a leap of faith on my part. However no one comes to Christ unless the father calls them.

Since that moment. I have read the promises and fulfilment of those promises. I have read of secular and religious archeology uncovering support for the once ridiculed writings in the bible and I have witness prayer answered within minutes and heard the testimonies of many others.

Blind faith ps ore a secular words reliance on science alone, I general, in my opinion. We can pick up any paper or article relating to science and it will be repleat with ambiguity. We will read words such as could, might, may etc. not definitive at all.

It's amazing to me that the secular world indulges in conspiracy at all, denying almost everything they see or hear and yet berates those that hold fast to their faith.

If science is the stalwart of society then I will mention the climate as why is is not to be trusted. Not for the obvious lies but for the rotation of those lies. A continually changing yet circular horizon of scientific so called fact. In the 1970s it was new ice age coming, then warming, then change and now we are coming full circle to new ice age again.

Society follows this blindly without investigation.

Regard



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 04:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Punisher75

Do you think you have blind faith towards that particular god? Not that god exists. Towards that specific religious belief in that religious god and the scripture surrounding it.


I don't think that my "faith" of the religious belief or the scripture around it is blind no.
I assume that it is true (if assume is reverent enough here) because I have seen evidence of it's validity in the course of argument, and research into context.
I do think that it helps if someone is willing to actually study the scripture in its historical and cultural context, allow the scripture to define itself, and actually try to apply a sound hermeneutic when doing so.
It helps to do this with as little outside influence as possible as well I think, so that you don't pollute your thoughts with prevailing ideas. By avoiding outside influence as much as possible I mean only this.
Don't go asking experts their opinion unless it is something you simply cannot know, or is in an area that you are weak in.
For example, I think that it is okay to ask a Greek scholar to translate for you if you don't know enough Greek to be "fluent". However I would not ask that same Greek Scholar something about Jewish history if I was weak in that area as well.
Did that help at all?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join