Comments Made Easier!

I recently adjusted the blog settings to make it easier to comment! If there are any problems, feel free to contact me on facebook!

Does Faith Have to be Blind?

Several good friends of mine once asked me the following question:

"The Bible tells us to have faith. 'Blessed are those who believe and have not seen'- Jesus. Faith is a requirement for salvation. How is 'having faith' a part of your search to find 'truth'?"

In response I would ask "what is your definition of faith?"

There are two rather broad definitions that I have encountered.
1. Blind faith- Choosing to believe something without (or even despite) evidence.
2. Trust- Faith in something because it has proven to be trustworthy.

But before we go any further, lets get some Greek and Hebrew action! (compliments of netBible)

Greek: πιστισ
Pronunciation: pis'-tis
Other ways this word is translated in netBible: faith 195, By faith 16, faithfulness 15, of faith 7, by faith 2, believe 2, believing 2, a faith 1, proof 1, in faith 1, pledge 1

Definition (netBible)1):
Conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it 1a) relating to God 1a1) the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ 1b) relating to Christ 1b1) a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God 1c) the religious beliefs of Christians 1d) belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same 2) fidelity, faithfulness 2a) the character of one who can be relied on

---

The first definition of "faith" is the one that has been popularized and has become widely accepted today. But what did "faith" mean for the disciples?

Hebrews 11 should be a great place to start:

11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, being convinced of what we do not see. 11:2 For by it the people of old  received God’s commendation.11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were set in order at God’s command,  so that the visible has its origin in the invisible.  11:4 By faith Abel offered God a greater sacrifice than Cain, and through his faith  he was commended as righteous, because God commended him for his offerings. And through his faith  he still speaks, though he is dead. 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he did not see death, and he was not to be found because God took him up. For before his removal he had been commended as having pleased God. 11:6 Now without faith it is impossible to please him, for the one who approaches God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. 11:7 By faith Noah, when he was warned about things not yet seen, with reverent regard  constructed an ark for the deliverance of his family. Through faith he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.

And now for some breaking it down verse by verse.

1a. Now faith is being sure of what we hope for

• "we"
• I think this refers to the church
• "what we hope for"
• I think this refers to the promise of God with reference to the future

1b. being convinced of what we do not see.

• What is it that "we do not see?"
• I think that this refers to the future reward which is promised to Christians. In other words, faith in this sentence is a trust in God that what He promised will come to pass
• "being convinced of what we do not see" should not be misinterpreted as "being convinced that God exists without having reasons for that belief." This misinterpretation has nothing to do with what the author of Hebrews was saying, and is only inserted when a modern indiviudal adds meaning that is not there.

Conclusion from verse 1
I do not think that Hebrews 11:1 is telling Christians to believe in the existence of God based on "faith" in the popular sense of the word (a.k.a. blind faith; believing something is true without having reasons or evidence).

Here are the errant fundamental assumptions that would lead someone to think Hebrews 11:1 is a proponent of blind faith:

1. Assuming that "what we hope for" is referring to hope for the existence of God
2. Assuming that "what we do not see" is God.

It would be truer to the passage to say:

1. "What we hope for" refers to the coming of the kingdom of God
2. "What we do not see" is the kingdom

This is especially true in light of Hebrews 1:13:
"These all died in faith without receiving the things promised, but they saw them in the distance and welcomed them and acknowledged that they were strangers and foreigners on the earth."


------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us now check out a few examples of faith from the people mentioned in Hebrews 11.

1. Enoch

• According to Genesis 5:24, Enoch not only saw God, but walked with Him. Would it make ANY sense to say that Enoch had faith in terms of believing in something without having any evidence? NO. Enoch walked with God. This means that Enoch must have had the second kind of faith (which refers to trusting in God's faithfulness based on the trustworthiness of God)

2. Noah

• According to Genesis 6, God told Noah to build the ark. Once again, does it make any sense to say that Noah had faith in the popular sense? No!
• It is MUCH more accurate to say this:
• God told Noah to build an ark.
• Noah believed that God would flood the world and that the ark would save him based on extremely good evidence (does it get better than God talking to you?)
• With Noah, ONLY the second sense in which the word "faith" can be taken makes sense.

3. Abraham

• Obviously, God also spoke to Abraham. Only the second sense of faith (based on evidence) applies to him for the same reasons as for Enoch and Noah.

------------------------------------------------------------
I realize that not everyone in the hall of faith had direct contact with God. However, the sense in which faith is used in the passage still cannot be the popular one. Verse 13 nails shut the coffin on any claims that the "blind faith" sense of faith is what is being spoken about with reference to any person listed in Hebrews 11: "These all died in faith without receiving the things promised, but they saw them in the distance and welcomed them and acknowledged that they were strangers and foreigners on the earth."

Conclusion:
It is wrong to tell someone who is honestly searching for evidence for the existence of God that they just "need to have faith" or that "you cannot be saved unless you base your belief on blind faith."
It is right to have faith in God (as in place trust in God) for the future promise of salvation if one has sufficient evidence that God exists.

HSFT Mentality Seminar

For those of you who haven't been personally involved in my search for truth, it can be easy to read a post or two on this blog and get a totally wrong impression concerning what I'm all about! The following videos come from a seminar I gave in Lubbock, and they depict the core priniciples and motives for my search! Hope you enjoy!

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1741088294761

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1741113335387

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1741176736972

Why the Cosmological Argument Fails

If anyone is unfamiliar with the cosmological argument and its variants, here are a few links to help you get started.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument
http://carm.org/cosmological-argument

Also, here is a brief summary from William Lane Craig:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

If you watch any of Craigs debates or interviews, you will find that he often starts his version of the cosmological argument with the Big Bang. He states that since the Big Bang happened, it must have had a cause. And what must this cause of the Big Bang have been like? Craig's conclusion is that it must have been a powerful entity apart from time, space, and energy. Sounds quite a lot like... God.
------------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree with Craig because one of his fundamental assumptions is wrong (I suspect that he does not realize that he is making this assumption).

At the Big Bang, the entire universe was crushed into a singularity- a point of infinite (or very very high) density and zero (or very very close to zero) volume.

We have no reason to believe that physics or reasoning as we understand them would apply in a singularity.

For example, physics as we know it does not apply at the quantum level (there is a different set of rules). When we start examining things that small, nothing makes sense anymore. A singularity occurs at a place lower than the quantum level.

Therefore, Craig's argument applies to everything after the Big Bang, but not necessarily to anything before or at the start of the Big Bang. The best answer to "what happened before the Big Bang?" or "what caused the Big Bang?" is not "it must have been a god" but rather "we don't know."

The Golden Rule

The Golden Rule is a universal principle:
"In  everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets." - Jesus

"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself."
(己所不欲，勿施于人）
- Confucious

"And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself." - Bahá'u'lláh

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Golden Rule of honestly searching for truth:

When discussing worldviews and religious beliefs, treat another's arguments the way you would want your arguments to be treated.

This means that if you want someone to listen to your arguments and actually give them a chance (instead of writing them off as false before even listening), then you should consider the possibility that the other person may be right. It also means actively listening- as opposed to thinking about how you will refute what someone says while they talk.

Don't assume that you have all the right answers before the conversation begins! To do so is to eliminate the possibility of progress.

Instead of looking for the answers you want, or the answers you grew up with, look for truth whether or not it matches what you currently believe.

Important Starting Questions

I hope everyone will not only answer these questions for themselves, but share their responses for others to read!

1. In discussions concerning the existence of God, should one start out assuming the existence of the Christian God? Why or why not?

2. In discussions concerning the existence of God, should one start out assuming the existence of Allah, the Mormon God(s), Zeus, Ik Onkar, etc. Why or why not?

3. In discussions concerning the existence of God, should one start out assuming that no god exists? Why or why not?


4. If you grew up as a Catholic, Buddhist, or Muslim, would you still be Catholic, Buddhist, or Muslim?

• Or would you have converted to what you currently are (assuming you are not one of the three I mentioned)

Summary of the Senses of 'History' according to Wright: Creating a Foundation for Discussion

In this post I will be summarizing and quoting N.T. Wright. Alomst all of the ideas below belong to Wright, not me.

1. History as an event
• Something happened whether or not we can prove that it happened
• Wright's example: The death of the last pterodactyl.
• "The death of the last pterodactyl is [a historical event in this sense] even though no human witnessed it or wrote about it at the time, and we are very unlikely ever to discover when and where it took place."
• This sense of 'history' can also refer to the existence of people or things
2. History as significant event
• Much of history that is recorded is made up of this kind of history
• Refers to people or events which "carried momentous consequences."
3. History as provable event
• An event whose occurrence can be proved using mathematics or other hard sciences.
4. History as writing-about-events-in-the-past
• "To say that something is 'historical' in this sense is to say that it was written about, or perhaps could in principle have been written about."
• Important variant:
• Oral History
• In the past some regarded spoken history as more reliable than written history. (insertion of my own idea: It will be useful to recognize the beliefs of people at certain times, whether or not we agree with those beliefs. For example, I think that written history is more reliable than oral. However, if someone in the past held oral tradition in higher regard, it will be useful for me to recognize that that person believed such)
5. History as what modern historians can say about a topic
• "that which can be demonstrated and written within the post-Enlightenment worldview." (post-Enlightenment worldview = period in which the field of history can have analogy and/or direct correlation to the hard sciences)

"Confusion between these senses has of course bedevilled this very debate about the so-called 'historical Jesus', the phrase being used by some to mean Jesus as he actually was (sense 1), by others to mean what was significant about Jesus (sense 2), by others to mean that which we can prove about Jesus, as opposed to that which we must either doubt or take on faith alone (sense 3); by others again to mean what people have written about Jesus (sense 4)." - Wright

I think understanding these senses will help prevent misunderstandings in future discussions!

N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God

I am beginning the long journey into the historical arguments for and against the resurrection of Jesus. First on my list of books to read is N.T. Wright's daunting and exhaustive "The Resurrection of the Son of God." As I trudge through the catacombs, I will be summarizing and providing opinions on Wright's arguments.