Not to jump into a conversation between you two too forcefully here…
but I don’t think those words mean “Blessed are those who believe without any evidence”, but rather "blessed are those who believe the evidence that they do have although it is not direct and visual, i.e., the verbal witness of others who did see, and (in our times) the reliability of the written testimony of those witnesses–i.e. the scripture.
In context in the passage, “doubting Thomas” did not lack evidence…he had the verbal testimony of his close friends and confidants.
So, I do not think Christian faith = “fideism”
but that’s my opinion.
K
The Bible doesn’t say “Blessed are those who refuse to look at the world around them so they can still believe in misguided interpretations of Genesis”.
We aren’t talking about belief in God. We are talking about our understanding of how nature works. Would you want to go to a doctor who ignores all of the scientific evidence in medicine and instead chooses medical treatments based on faith?
The theory of evolution is part of science. The geologic history of the Earth is part of science. The natural history of life on Earth is part of science.
Both are science, both are practical, and both are theoretical. For example, treatments of infections in medicine are based on the Germ Theory of Disease. The theory of evolution is used to determine functional sequence through sequence conservation which is then the focus of medical treatments.
I absolutely agree. Theistic evolution is a theological position that attempts to reconcile theistic beliefs with consensus science.
We could make that argument Richard, however, the problem for me is, God has left evidences of a global flood…both written and in science. Therefore, i cant support that argument because of those evidences.
One hypothesized alternatives to the biblical flood account, “The Black Sea Deluge”…i find it interesting that this event supports the bible story in that region and is evidence for the flood as described in the bible (not against it).
’
We also cannot ignore the biblical statement from Genesis 6 “everything that breathed was destroyed”
And again Christ reiterates Genesis in the gospels. Christ is talking about a global salvation event…not a local one only for the Jewish culture in the middle east:
Matthew 24:37-39:
“But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in those days they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and the other left.”
Luke 17:26-27:
“And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: They were eating, drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away.”
The apostle John writing 30 years after Christs death, foretells the Second Coming event in
Revelation 21:4 "He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall mourning, nor crying, nor pain be any more
At the end of the day, we choose to believe the bible story because we choose to believe in a Creator God who is going to fix that which was corrupted and broken when sin enterred this world. If the notion of a Creator God redeeming His creation from sin is supported by evidence, then what is it we are striving for as Christians…self enlightenment?
As i have said many times before, atheism does not need to Bible for morality…it claims we got it from evolutionary and cultural experimentation.
I think everyone agrees that Noah’s flood could have been inspired by a local flood like the Black Sea event. There were certainly a lot of candidates as we emerged from the last glaciation cycle with sea levels rising hundreds of feet and the results of large glacier melts.
As an atheist, I find some of the Bible to be a good source of morality. I still think there is wisdom in the words written in the Bible without also needing to believe they were divinely inspired. Wisdom can be found in the scriptures of many religions because humans can be wise.
so from which part of the bible do you derive your morality, the command to kill the entire Amalekite nation (incl women and children) or the roman crucifixion of a good man on the cross and later persecution of the followers of that man?
Im asking that because for the atheist who has little interest in the real reason for the existence of the bible:
a book which claims that we were created, sinned and the earths beauty and our immortality tarnished and was taken away, that a God/man died to pay the wages of sin as prphesied by the Old Testament sanctuary service enacted by Moses (where there is no record of him having ever existed), and then one day we shall all travel up into space (against gravity and in an oxygen-less environment) to a place that no modern telescope can find (heaven), to be with that Creator for all eternity…
unless your purpose for reading the bible is the above, its mostly stories of barbarism and myth.
I have always found the Sermon on the Mount to be inspiring. It’s always good to be reminded to be kind to others and be humble. I have long enjoyed the Parable of the Widow’s Mite which shows how the meager and humble gift is often more powerful than the large and ostentatious one. “Judge not, that ye not be judged” is also a good reminder to be as critical of your own behavior as that of others. There’s plenty of wisdom to be taken from the Bible without needing to believe in its divine claims.
I specified historical evidence with a legal perspective – that’s hardly scientific.
An illustration of the difference: in crime, freely volunteered eyewitness information tends to be quite dependable; in science, not so much.
I’ve read four different books by people who started out as atheists aiming to disprove the Resurrection using the legal principles of their times, from four different centuries of human history, in which all were convinced that by their legal systems Jesus could be “convicted” of rising from the dead – and became Christians.
Why? You’ve said more than once that you aren’t restricted to logic, that you rely on the subjective.
Um, the evidence for the Black Sea flood does not fit a global flood . . . unless you make up some more stuff contrary to God’s laws of nature that makes water and land behave differently in one instance.
“. . . one only for the Jewish culture in the middle east” – where did you pull that from?
Beside that, Christ is not talking about a salvation event in that passage, and the comparison to Noah’s time does not require a global flood, only the massive flood that Genesis describes. Once again you are forcing human tradition onto the text.
No, though it does require some ad hoc beginning such as self-interest.
