« Civility & False Tolerance | Main | Theological Poet - "Let Me Count the Ways" »

June 30, 2009

Comments

I never understood the concept of Blind Faith. It's like someone talking you into believing you have something you don't actually have. Like believing you got a good deal at the used car lot when you know you didn't.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.

Because of Faith, I find it impossible not to believe in Christ, just as I find it impossible not to believe I'm setting here typing this.

"Blind" faith is an oxymoron. No one can really force themselves to believe something that they have zero evidence for. Gritting yout teeth and repeating "I do believe it...I do believe it" is for evolutionists. Faith ALWAYS has a basis if it is real faith.

Good point Frank. I think that's the difference in "faith" and "blind faith". True faith in God is an insult to me when it is called "blind faith", just my opinion...

Referring to Christian faith as, "blind faith" is a Saul Alinsky tactic, and too many of us aren't prepared to even realize that, much less defend against it.

'Blind faith' is an interesting term. One does not have 'blind faith', rather, one may be blind to another one's faith. So 'blind to faith' may be as far as we should distill that phrase down to simplicity. I am also considering that faith may be completely understood by one who 'has faith', yet impossible to explain to one who does not. Perhaps that is because reason for faith comes with faith and without-faith no reason for faith comes. That may be explained to one without faith; as with a ruler (defined as any measuring device) comes the measure, without one there is not the other. Just thoughts, I like your blog.

"An oxymoron (plural oxymora (greek plural) or, more often, oxymorons) is a figure of speech that combines two normally contradictory terms. They appear in a range of contexts, from inadvertent errors such as extremely average, to deliberate puns like same difference, to literary oxymorons that have been carefully crafted to reveal a paradox."

Since "Blind" does not contradict "Faith" (unless you are saying the blind are faithless), it's not an oxymoron. Further, you imply that evolutionists' faith is blind, after implying that blind faith is a paradox in the first place, which it clearly isn't. PLZ REED MOAR BOOKZ

Thanks for the definition of oxymoron Noah Webster.

Frank was merely making the point that faith is based upon reason not wishful thinking. Using the word "blind" to qualify faith is a way of saying "reasonless reasoned belief." (Or something to that effect) If there is no reason then there is no faith.

I'm sure you could discern what Frank meant, after all you reed plenty of bookz Im soore, but were offended by his evolution comment.

And by the way, the blind are faithless.

LoL silverware

Thanks for the chuckle, Plastic :)

Christianity has perverted the understanding of "faith" to become a belief in something, (whether or not it is truly correct or not), usually spoken or expressed in words. It is not a deep ''hoping for' something! It is directly tied to actions. The contradiction of Paul and James about faith and works illustrates the error of the concept of hoping. Biblically, faith is "what a person does, how a person lives" not what they say they believe. Many people say they believe in God. Yet, they live like God doesn't exist or that He won't judge their lives righteously. If it isn not 'evidenced' by actions, why does Paul say, about Abraham, 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for faith'! Abraham didn't need any evidence in order to believe that God would direct his path from Ur; he didn't require any proof that he would receive another son to replace Isaac, (after sacrificing him); he did as he was told, no questions, no 'give me more details', no give a reason, etc. He just did. That is the reason he is called faithful. He did what God said.
A faithful person, in this day and age, has so much written and visual evidence to demonstrate God's existence, (and grace, and mercy, and love), (cf. a great cloud of witnesses), there is no excuse not to obey. One only needs to want to see, to hear, etc.

Howard,

If I have misunderstood what you have written please clarify, otherwise I will remain confused by what you claim.

You say that Paul and James stand in contradiction to each other when one preaches faith and the other works. But if you say that the Biblical understanding of faith is works then where is the contradiction? You cannot be claiming Paul is unbiblical. If Paul means living a righteous life when he uses the word faith, why is that a contradiction with what James says when he speaks of living a righteous life as faith?

Also, I do not agree with you that the Biblical meaning of faith is "works" but I am just trying to understand your point.

The idea of blind faith can be attributed to the Apostle Paul's statment about "we walk by faith and not by sight." Yet correctly this is the Christian walk by faith. But the Christian faith though not based on what one can only see and touch, but rather is in God's inerrant word. The faith is not blind. Jesus warned against blind faith and false teaching, saying, "if the blind lead the blind they both shall fall into the ditch."

For that matter one's reasons are a matter of faith in one's reason. No one can have reason without faith.

Oddly enough you can understand it from odd sources; I saw it from Firefly. Now Firefly is a non-christian show and has a lot of inappropriate things but one can learn a lot about such things by watching the relationship between the Tam siblings.
In the episode Ariel Simon Tam was smuggling River Tam into a hospital to get a brain scan. In doing so he was asking a disturbed girl to face her biggest fear(for the hospital looked looked just like the torture chamber he had rescued her from). She did so because she loved and trusted her big brother and went in and out.
As it happened her faith was quite rational for Simon was both very smart and very dedicated to her. But the point is you have to see it to understand it. It wasn't "blind faith" but neither was it a profit-and-loss assessment. It was something more.

The comments to this entry are closed.