Do all Christians have blind faith?

For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
-Jesus Christ

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
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.

So Christians should tear out their eyes and then they can believe in God.
No sight means no sight?

Nowhere in the bible are Christians told not to question God, the Apostles questioned God about everything.

The bible calls Christians to walk by faith simply because what we see in this life is the opposite of what we want. Faith is trying to live Godly in an ungodly world.

To you faith is a thought, to Christ it is an action, its love.

a reply to: borntowatch

Nowhere in the bible are Christians told not to question God

This seems suggestive of that:

Romans 9:20 NIV

But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'"

a reply to: AreUKiddingMe
Good. We agree on what faith means then.

However, there is no evidence to the contrary of there being a God of the universe.

I consistently say on ATS that we cannot disprove ‘god’ with science. Since science cannot address the supernatural [outside of nature].

We can disprove religious claims. As many religious claims are specific to the natural World. When enough of said dogma is disproven it’s quite reasonable to then disbelieve in the religious god it represents.

God-belief itself is separate from belief in any religious god. As one can believe in a creator god and not in any religious doctrine.

About the fruit trees in creation. You're going by texts that are thousands of years old, translated as best they could be, comparing ancient language to the language of today. Relying on the exact translation of a text transcribed by man, to prove or disprove a theory, narrowing it down to fruit trees, is a little over the top.

No.

By all means look of the exact verses. Look up Day 3 and Day 4 in Genesis in the Latin Vulgate. It WILL corroborate exactly what I said.

I will do it for you if you want!

Now if the growing fruit trees in freezing conditions without sunlight is “over the top” to you then address this:

Genesis says the Sun and all stars are made after Earth.

That couldn’t be more contrary to science.

Again verify that in the Latin Vulgate. Or A closer translation from Hebrew if you wish. By all means prove me wrong!

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: borntowatch

Nowhere in the bible are Christians told not to question God

This seems suggestive of that:

Romans 9:20 NIV

But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'"

It does....but

You need to read a book like Job to fully understand what the point is.

God promises humanity something better than this. Your one scripture is in contrast to the whole old testament where prophets of God questioned and questioned and questioned.
Those of little faith will be blessed according to the sermon on the mount

3Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Your comment relates to accepting our role as opposed to questioning our role in life.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: AreUKiddingMe
Good. We agree on what faith means then.

However, there is no evidence to the contrary of there being a God of the universe.

I consistently say on ATS that we cannot disprove ‘god’ with science. Since science cannot address the supernatural [outside of nature].

God-belief itself is separate from belief in any religious god. As one can believe in a creator god and not in any religious doctrine.

About the fruit trees in creation. You're going by texts that are thousands of years old, translated as best they could be, comparing ancient language to the language of today. Relying on the exact translation of a text transcribed by man, to prove or disprove a theory, narrowing it down to fruit trees, is a little over the top.

No.

By all means look of the exact verses. Look up Day 3 and Day 4 in Genesis in the Latin Vulgate. It WILL corroborate exactly what I said.

I will do it for you if you want!

Now if the growing fruit trees in freezing conditions without sunlight is “over the top” to you then address this:

Genesis says the Sun and all stars are made after Earth.

That couldn’t be more contrary to science.

Again verify that in the Latin Vulgate. Or A closer translation from Hebrew if you wish. By all means prove me wrong!

Ok, first lets clear up what is "science"? Is it proven fact? Scientifically nothing has been proven about the universe. Even its age is only a guess made upon a presupposition. Tell me what has been proven? If I believe in an all-powerful God, could I not believe that he caused billions of years to occur in a week, hour, minute, or seconds? Science has been grasping for evidence to refute there being a God, from the universe and the stars all the way to living beings, suggesting that there is a logical explanation for everything.

More about God and the Bible can be proven than any existence of UFOs. But still people believe in UFOs. What is it about the Bible that people are trying so hard to disprove?

The fruit tree Latin things I don't know about but I'll take your word about what it says. Still, I choose to believe the Bible's version that was written a long long time ago, rather than anybody's version of creation or evolution today. That's my flavor of choice at Baskin Robbins.

a reply to: AreUKiddingMe

Ok, first lets clear up what is "science”?

Science is that wonderful stuff we use to produce most of what you and other religious people enjoy on a daily basis. That device you used to ask me that question was quite the scientific achievement, and continues to be one, for instance.

Scientifically nothing has been proven about the universe.

You’re qualified to say this? Or is that a theologically-backed declaration?

Tell me what has been proven?

We absolutely know scientifically that stars, and lots of them, existed before the Earth was formed. Which is directly contrary to what the Bible says. You’re not going to be able to find a cosmologist, even a religious one, that believes the science supports that the Earth formed prior to all stars.

If I believe in an all-powerful God, could I not believe that he caused billions of years to occur in a week, hour, minute, or seconds?

My arguments are not about the time it took but the order it happened.

Genesis says trees were growing and bearing fruit in Day 3.
Genesis says the Sun and all stars are made on Day 4.

Again. This implies trees would be growing for years in freezing conditions with zero sunlight. We know that’s not something that can happen.

You’re right though. Should an omnipotent god exist it could surely do whatever. Defy the laws of physics and all that. Anything really. This line of thinking would be fine except religious people attempt to evoke science and logic into these arguments when they should just stick to “God has magical powers”. That’s really what it comes down to.

Science has been grasping for evidence to refute there being a God

.
We fully understand science is limited to the known Universe. We need to be able to observe things to apply the scientific methodology. Science is quite indifferent to a creator god. If people use science to disprove ‘god’ then it’s against specific religious claims we can address scientifically. For instance the ones from Genesis I am bringing up. That’s very much something we can address.

More about God and the Bible can be proven than any existence of UFOs. But still people believe in UFOs.

The whole World could believe fire golems live in the Earth’s core but belief alone wouldn’t automatically make it objectively truthful. It just doesn’t work that way.

Now what is all that you feel has been proven about the Bible and that particular religious god?

What is it about the Bible that people are trying so hard to disprove?

Parts have already been disproven. It’s up to the religious person to decide how much warrants disbelief.

If you’re asking ‘Why’… well that’s a loaded question but it essentially boils down to the fact religions impact the lives of non-religious people.

That's my flavor of choice at Baskin Robbins.

For sure That’s your freedom, and I would fight to maintain your ability to have those beliefs, or any others.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

It's not "magic" when God does it l, Duh.

*Deleted a post to Undo. Felt we probably already covered it.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: AreUKiddingMe

Ok, first lets clear up what is "science”?

Science is that wonderful stuff we use to produce most of what you and other religious people enjoy on a daily basis. That device you used to ask me that question was quite the scientific achievement, and continues to be one, for instance.

Isnt it funny how atheists want to possess science as their own little achievement where in stark contrast it isnt and never has been their possession.
It was early Christianity who started public education and the fields of science flowered from this achievement.
Many christians have been at the forefront of science and still are.

The only time science and Christianity seem to butt heads is in the evolution debate, so easy there buddy.
You dont own science and cant claim it.

a reply to: borntowatch

Isnt it funny how atheists want to possess science as their own little achievement

What's funny is I in no way said science was the domain of atheists! I've said technology is shared by all of us. I've said religious people are scientists too. Science and technology come from atheists and religious people. They are both used by the religious and the secular.

You pulled that out of no where and pawned it off like it was something Ive said.

However, the rigorous work done in the various scientific fields don't look different from the religious than what's done by the secularists. Science is science. So no... atheists don't have domain on science or technology. I never said that. Nor do the religious have domain here.

It was early Christianity who started public education and the fields of science flowered from this achievement.

“[R]eligion was the race's first (and worst) attempt to make sense of reality. It was the best the species could do at a time when we had no concept of physics, chemistry, biology or medicine. We did not know that we lived on a round planet, let alone that the said planet was in orbit in a minor and obscure solar system, which was also on the edge of an unimaginably vast cosmos that was exploding away from its original source of energy. We did not know that micro-organisms were so powerful and lived in our digestive systems in order to enable us to live, as well as mounting lethal attacks on us as parasites. We did not know of our close kinship with other animals. We believed that sprites, imps, demons, and djinns were hovering in the air about us. We imagined that thunder and lightning were portentous. It has taken us a long time to shrug off this heavy coat of ignorance and fear, and every time we do there are self-interested forces who want to compel us to put it back on again.” ~ Christopher Hitchens

The only time science and Christianity seem to butt heads is in the evolution debate, so easy there buddy.
You dont own science and cant claim it.

Stop inventing arguments and shoving them in my mouth.

Science and Christianity butt heads on more than evolution. Which I already demonstrated. If you're not actually reading my posts than you're not qualified to say what you're saying about me or the things I've allegedly said.

Genesis is very much contrary to cosmology in addition to evolution. We could dedicate a whole discussion on how it's contrary to plant biology as well. A discussion on Noah's Ark. The alleged lifespans of early man. There are numerous Biblical things that 'buttheads'.