thecanessacorner

Biblical Faith is not a Blind Leap in the Dark


Kierkegaard suggested that faith was a blind leap into the darkness, Jesus Christ however, never expected his followers to believe blindly. He told his listeners that if they didn’t believe his words, to at least believe the evidence of the miracles themselves (Jn. 14:11). The apologetics of Jesus involved performing miracles. The greatest of these miracles was his resurrection from the dead. There are two aspects to this miracle, first, the fact that he predicted it in advance (Matt. 16:21; Mk. 10:33-34; Lk. 9:22) and second, the fact that it happened (Acts 2:23-24; 13:13-15). Taken by itself, the resurrection is already a singularity. However, given the fact that it was predicted in detail by Jesus himself one week prior makes it the greatest miracle of the bible. The very God of the universe, who created man, emptied himself of his former glory and took on human flesh setting aside the independent use of his attributes as God and thus allowing himself to be fully human. As such, he died on a cross as the atonement for man’s sins. In order to confirm who he was, he predicted his death and resurrection in detail one week in advance. Jesus put a premium on evidence for his claims about himself. Both his prophecy concerning his resurrection as well as the resurrection itself confirms this. God the Father himself is equally interested in evidence.
God the Father is equally interested in providing man with evidence for his faith. Acts 17:31 makes it clear that one of God’s purposes in raising Jesus from the dead was to provide “proof” of man’s coming judgment. In addition, in regard to the evidentiary value of the resurrection, we must remember that God could have very easily just said he loved us. However, it seems, in some sense, emotions like this have to be played out in space and time for them to be real. For example, a father can say his children are his priority, but if he never spends time with them, his actions prove otherwise. Likewise, God didn’t just say he loved us, he proved it by entering space and time and dying for us. He actually “evidenced” his love for us. God doesn’t expect his children to believe blindly, he provides us with evidence to support our faith in him.

Of course, you're assuming that those things happened. Jefferson did not believe it, and neither do I. So, if an omnipotent god was going to send a savior for all of humanity, but condition each person's individual salvation on knowing about him, why would he neglect to tell most of the world about this supposed savior for many centuries?

If an almighty god wanted all cultures, and indeed every person, to believe it, they would at least have heard the story. How do you explain that they didn't?

You can't reasonably argue that it was the job of Christian missionaries to tell everyone because God would have know that they couldn't: they didn't even know there was a continent on the other side of a round world, much less that there were people on it. Surely an omnipotent God would have known all of that. If Jesus had been who you say he was, God would have told the Native Americans about him, and they would have been celebrating Christmas when the Europeans arrived. How do you explain that they weren't? The only logical conclusion is that the story is a cultural artifact, and nothing more.

Then there's the problem of why God waited thousands of years to send this savior. If Christianity was God's religion, it would have been the first religion. The fact that it wasn't also proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is a cultural artifact, not the religion of the one true god.

In addition, either salvation by the blood is necessary or it isn't. If it is, why did God wait, and allow millions of people to suffer in eternal torment without having a chance to be saved? There's no explaining that.

Then there's the problem of eternal damnation in the first place. A loving god simply wouldn't do that.

My view of Faith is that it is a great creative force in life, and should be directed toward the good. Why would you want to have faith in a story like that one?

Belief in the Bible doesn't have to be blind faith, but it does if you're going to take it literally.

"Belief in the Bible doesn't have to be blind faith, but it does if you're going to take it literally."

Concerning the above quote by Mr. L, if we don't interpret the Bible literally, then it is left up to over 6 billion individual interpretations. We would never dream of doing this with other documents (although it has been tried in other posts with the writings of Jefferson including the Declaration of Independence).

Many people misunderstand what it means to interpret the Bible literally. I believe the Holy Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation to be God’s inspired word to mankind. He chose to communicate to man in words intelligable to him. Therefore I believe that the Scriptures ought to be interpreted literally. By this I mean they are to be interpreted according to the normal conventions of written language. That is, if something is written in the genre of prose concerning past events, it is meant to be interpreted as literal History. By contrast, if something is written in the genre of poetry, is should be understood following the conventions of poetry. For example, in poetry, a young lover might refer to his beloved’s lips as rubies. He is immediately understood to be referring to the appealing redness of his lovers lips. It would be ridiculous to interpret him as meaning her lips are a hard, cold mineral! With regard to Scripture, the specific genre of the passage being read has a direct bearing on how it is to be interpreted. The following popular quote is in order, “When the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense!”

By the way, Jesus interpreted the Bible literally, "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of the pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until allis accomplished." Jesus in Mathew 5:18

Your argument here assumes that the Bible is literally true. I gave half a dozen reasons why the story about Jesus is obviously not true.

Most people think the Bible has value for its symbolism. For example, the story of Adam and Eve and their “fall from grace” is really a story about our coming into the world, with all its heartaches but all its wonders, too. So yes, each person should draw from it what that person can draw, because it’s obviously not a literally true story. If you think it is literally true, then perhaps you can tell us what fruit grows on the tree of knowledge. That’s a pretty obvious metaphor, don’t you think?

Mr. P. wrote:"Belief in the Bible doesn't have to be blind faith, but it does if you're going to take it literally."

Concerning the above quote by Mr. L, if we don't interpret the Bible literally, then it is left up to over 6 billion individual interpretations.

First of all, "interpreting the Bible literally" is subjective. No one has any original manuscripts. All of the Bibles in existence today have already been interpreted, translated, copied, a bunch of times over. At best, you have no choice but to take someone else's interpretation literally.

Secondly, look at how many Christian denominations there are. What percentage of them do you think believe that they are not interpreting the Bible correctly? The fact is that the Bible is so ambiguous and incoherent that the existence of all of these denominations is possible.

We would never dream of doing this with other documents (although it has been tried in other posts with the writings of Jefferson including the Declaration of Independence).

Don't compare the Bible to documents that are nothing like it. When it comes to a document making many, many claims about historical events, but which are not corroborated by anything else (and don't even claim that because the story mentions real places here and there, that that gives it any credibility; Gone With the Wind is set in Georgia, but that is no proof that the events in Gone With the Wind ever happened), the Bible is treated the same as all other such documents; that is, not assumed to be true without any evidence.

Many people misunderstand what it means to interpret the Bible literally. I believe the Holy Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation to be God’s inspired word to mankind. He chose to communicate to man in words intelligable to him. Therefore I believe that the Scriptures ought to be interpreted literally. By this I mean they are to be interpreted according to the normal conventions of written language. That is, if something is written in the genre of prose concerning past events, it is meant to be interpreted as literal History. By contrast, if something is written in the genre of poetry, is should be understood following the conventions of poetry. For example, in poetry, a young lover might refer to his beloved’s lips as rubies. He is immediately understood to be referring to the appealing redness of his lovers lips. It would be ridiculous to interpret him as meaning her lips are a hard, cold mineral! With regard to Scripture, the specific genre of the passage being read has a direct bearing on how it is to be interpreted. The following popular quote is in order, “When the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense!”

By the way, Jesus interpreted the Bible literally, "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of the pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until allis accomplished." Jesus in Mathew 5:18

It requires blind faith to accept the Bible's claims in and of themselves, period.