No, faith is belief without proof. It’s common for skeptics to insist that Christianity teaches that one should believe without having any evidence whatsoever, but that’s not what the Bible teaches. What’s more,the dictionary firmly establishes this use of the term.
And before anyone raises this objection, “evidence” and “proof” are not the same thing. I earnestly hope that I don’t need to explain why.
I thought faith was assurance/substance/reality in things hoped for and unseen. Firmly established in the Bible itself.
Clearly better without evidence:
Actually, you are both right, according to the Bible.
That’s the problem.
Well, be fair. Pretty much every household promulgates the values of the parents onto the children, even if only by example.
But that does not negate your other points, that belief is emphasized and faith is mandatory, because that’s all they have to work with. True of every religion, not just Christianity.
Roddy
If all snake handlers became corpses, there would be no one left to perpetuate that particular belief. Granted, some snake handlers die. Most do not. As for me, I don’t trust poisonous snakes and I’m going to use the sense that I have.
I’m not certain what you consider “even a tiny miracle.” I unknowingly had lung cancer for eight years before it was biopsied, confirmed, and surgically removed. The doctors that attended to me said they had never seen anything like it. For me, that is at least a “tiny-miracle.”
But maybe I see miracles differently from what you see. The blind HAVE been made to see and the deaf to hear. Through the use of modern science, these “miracles” have come about. Are you saying that science cannot have a divine source? Are you saying that science can’t produce miracles? Through the science of computer technology, I met the closest thing to a soulmate that I can imagine. We’ve been married 27 years.
The fact that human life is created from sexual desire, to me is a miracle. The change of seasons is a miracle. Some miracles can be explained. Does that make it any less than a miracle?
An untouched forest is a fractal. The tree branches out in the same way that the tree itself has formed. Even more astounding is that the forest grows in the same pattern. That’s pretty amazing.
If you look in the dictionary, you will find that a miracle does not have to be divinely inspired. For those of us who believe that God is, for want of a better name, "The Great Cosmic Glue, it is all divinely inspired.
Mountains sometimes cast themselves into the sea. Ever seen volcanoes spill lava into the sea?
Do you know anything about platetectonics? Why are the Smokey Mountains not as high as the Rockies? Why is India called a “sub-continent”? Who said that miracles have to be instantaneous? (Time is not what most think it is anyway.)
Five women and one man have performed the miracle of overriding the abusive childhood that I had and imparted strength to me that I never thought I would have. They are miracles in my life.
I am so fortunate to be able to look and to see.
“Unseen” doesn’t mean “without any evidence whatsoever.” It simply means that you don’t have proof… and again, proof is not the same as evidence.
First, please note the actual content of that verse. It says, “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” It does NOT say that belief should be made without any evidence whatsoever.
Consider the context. Jesus was speaking to Doubting Thomas, who was skeptical that Jesus had risen from the dead. When Jesus did manifest himself before Thomas, Thomas cried out in his belief. Instead of castigating Thomas for his doubt, Jesus proclaimed that those who believed without personally witnessing the risen one – perhaps because they previously found Jesus to be trustworthy – were themselves especially blessed.
It’s easy enough to see why. Consider Mary and Martha, who had seen Jesus raise their brother Lazarus from the dead. By all indications, they were pretty close to the Messiah as well. One can easily imagine that they would be willing to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead, even without personally witnessing the risen one. If so, they’d be prime examples of people who believed that Jesus had risen, despite not having witnessed this personally. They’d have sufficient evidence to compel their belief, even though this fell short of actual proof.
So no, John 20:29 doesn’t teach that faith means belief without any shred of evidence. One has to read that definition into this verse, taking it out of context, in order to make that case.
Heh. I did the falling thing also, but not for faith in any kind of god but for faith in the team and AT&T. Your comment about the nosering is right on. No acid, or even pot, though.
When your business model involves maximizing the number of customers, you can’t afford to get too picky. Belief is good because it disqualifies nobody. You can be a mother stabber or a father raper or even a litterer, and if you claim to have faith you are welcome to the club, so long as you pay your dues.
I have a similar example. There are lots of trade rags which sell ads based on their subscriber base. You get to be a subscriber for free if you meet their qualifications. Nice missionary, I mean sales, ladies call me up and ask me if I want to subscribe.
Telling them that this particular magazine has nothing to do with me doesn’t work at all. In fact, some of them say that if I just read it I will like it - kind of like if you just believed in Jesus you will believe.
I’m sure that if they could say domini domini domini you’re all subscribers now they would. Just like mass conversions.
Funny how evidence was important in the stories they made up, but as soon as they had to show some it became bad. Then: Jesus shows his messiah-hood by walking on water. Now: Jesus shows his messiah-hood by appearing on a piece of toast. It is to laugh.
An observation, not a complete answer to your question: As with any major life decision, a demand for “hard evidence” or proof before taking the plunge can be—isn’t always, but can be—an excuse to avoid making a commitment.
God is like a gambler: he won’t let you profit if you don’t put some money down first.
The funny thing is that it doesn’t hurt god any to just let everyone into heaven
Paul summed it up - without the belief, the faith is in vain -
[QUOTE=Paul @ 1 Corinthians 15:12-19]
12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
[/QUOTE]
The entire basis of any ‘revealed’ religion is in believing what has been revealed to you -
An “excuse”? :rolleyes: Making a lifetime commitment without evidence is blatantly foolish, and refusing to do so without evidence is the rational course of action, not making an excuse. The excuse being made here is the one being made for religion and its total baselessness; since religion has no evidence then making a lifetime commitment with no evidence has to be good, otherwise committing to a religion is a bad idea, and that’s a taboo opinion.
More like a con man. He won’t give you the great opportunity to buy this land cheap if you don’t have faith in the development. If you find it is on the corner of swamp and swamp he’ll exclude you, and you’ll be sorry.
You may love the house, but only a fool would buy without an inspection. You might think the opportunity is great, but only a rube would pay money without a decent Google search. And if you have even a penny to your name, you don’t get married without knowing a bit about your prospective spouse.
The only people who say what you say are con artists. Others want to provide evidence. In this the difference between science and religion couldn’t be clearer.
We do have a bit of a language+logic problem. Realistically, there is no way to discern any difference between a miracle and a permutation of the Brownian soup. To you, the thing that worked out is miraculous, to someone else, it was luck-of-the-draw, and we cannot tell whether there was some phantasmic superbeing guiding your fate or if it was just, you know, your fate. If you consider these things to be divine miracles, that is how you see it, if I see it differently, well, forgiiive me.
You’re either not speaking the same language as me, or you are (for whatever reason) describing an impossibility. The way I use the words, it is impossible to choose a conviction. A conviction–like any belief–impresses itself on you. I couldn’t choose a conviction any more than I could choose to believe the sky is yellow.
To respond to the OP, I think the focus on belief evolved from an early theme in nascent Christianity emphasizing the way that all the good stuff that came from being a part of this community came freely, as a gift equally given to every person regardless of their past or station. “I didn’t do anything… I just believed,” where “believe” was understood as simply, passively understanding that which one has been presented with (possibly also: trusting that people will make good on their promises). This came over time (I speculate) to be misunderstood/transformed into the idea that belief is a command we should obey, or a choice for which we should be rewarded.
Very much a WAG on my part but it seems to make sense of the various bits of information we have concerning early Christian origins.
So Jesus promised that a tiny speck of faith would allow you to cast a mountain into the sea, and some mountains have eroded, and you therefore consider the promise of Jesus to be fulfilled?
I have a wonderful investment opportunity for you. I promise that you will double your money in a week, by which I mean that somebody, somewhere, some time in the past, once made some money. PM me with your bank account number.
The problem is that we can define evidence relatively clearly, but you can’t define “proof” outside of mathematics. Can you “prove” the world is round? All those astronauts might be lying! But, lying or not, they have told us, “You can see the curve of the earth,” and that is evidence.
I’m coming from a more scientific tradition. Few scientific precepts are proven. Evolution displaced Creation, because the evidence is superior, but not because it was “proven.”
That, too!
It’s actually possible… You use techniques like self-hypnosis. Or “Induction of Psycho-neuroses by Conditioned Reflex under strESS.”
Well, anyway, semi-seriously, if you’re willing to play games with your mind, you really can “believe six impossible things before breakfast.” That this leads one into the realm of insanity is a minor drawback…