Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Right now I'm at a crossroads. I don't know if I'm too grounded for bilnd fath (with christianity) or too lazy and too little will power for buddism so right now i'm nutral and I think we should all just get along.

_________________
RIP Nathan "Buz" Buzdor

Of course we should all just get along.

As a person without a sense of god, I'm wondering about the phrase "blind faith". Is true, reasoned faith really blind? Joey, Didymus, lumberjack, would you characterize your faiths as "blind"?

_________________

Hey, I'm extremely lazy and I have little willpower, but it doesn't stop me from following the Buddha. I don't do it well, granted, but in a way, you can't, really. I can do better, and no matter how "good" I am, I could do better...it's about self-improvement, or more accurately the improvement of all things, of which the self is a part. So all you're saying is you have the need to do so. Why not do it, then, whether you follow the way of the Buddha or the Christ?

- Kef

I think faith is blind by its very nature, and "reasoned faith" is a sort of contradiction in terms. You can have reasoning and you can have faith, and you can very well have both at the same time, but they're different things. Faith is basically "I'll take your word for it", whereas reasoning is "I know this is right because of such-and-such".

- Kef

the defination of blind faith is holding on to an idea even though there is no proof that it happened staying with christ and god is a work of blind faith

_________________
RIP Nathan "Buz" Buzdor

Good points, but there are people whose faiths are blinder than others'. I guess a better word might be "unconsidered". So many people follow the faith of their parents without actually having any understanding of it and having never questioned or even inspected it. And then there are people who have clearly questioned their faith, understand and can articulate their beliefs. That is what I meant by "reasoned faith".

_________________

There is no proof that things are as described in the Bible, but there is evidence that they are (the difference between the two, in my mind, is that proof is likely true whereas evidence is only indication). However, there is also lots of evidence to the contrary and virtually every religion has some sort of base of evidence that it is the truth...

so I'm right? Right?
This discussion is one post away from making my head explode in a mess of logic and I want that to happen so keep 'em coming

on a small unrelated note the post above mine is InterupterJones' 500th
good Jorb IJ!

_________________
RIP Nathan "Buz" Buzdor

This reminds me of the Creationism episode of Penn & Teller's Bulls**t! (mature content warning, and it should be noted that P&T are staunch atheists). it makes the distinction between people who refuse to consider anything that is contrary to their religion and the people who accept such things and are able to cope with disparity.

_________________

This annoys me to no end. I almost fell into such a situation myself. I remember first I was agnostic, then in my late teens a Christian, then an atheist, then an agnostic atheist (don't anyone even try and tell me that being an agnostic and an atheist are mutually exclusive; no belief in God is distinct from belief in no God). But my brain didn't kick in until I was a Christian. I finally realized that I didn't really believe any of it and I wasn't going to be half-[sassy-frass]ed about it. But then I kinda went too far in the other direction and basically flamed Christianity into the ground wherever I found it, in stereotypical atheist fashion. Then I kinda grew up, heh...

wow kef that sounds like a prediction of my future mabye you should consider being the only buddist gypsy

_________________
RIP Nathan "Buz" Buzdor

InterruptorJones wrote:

No, I wouldn't. I guess that I need evidence for all my beliefs now, and I also think that if a person requires you to have 'blind faith,' they can easily manipulate you and your beliefs.

I like to think that I believe in things that have shown to be beneficial to myself, my loved ones, humanity, and to the Earth.

If something is scientifically shown to be dangerous, then I am against it.

If something is shown to be philosophically dangerous down through history, e.g. indulgences from the Catholic Church, then I am against it. I am a big fan of using history to plan the future. Humanity should be a successful as possible, and plenty of mistakes have already been made. We can learn from the mistakes.

That does seem to be a big part of religion, though, 'blind faith.' "Take it on faith," I remember my youth pastor telling me in high school. "God will be faithful if you are faithful."

I guess that might be true, but I don't profess to know what God wants anymore. I don't profess to know what he thinks, either.

People that tell me to have blind faith in certain beliefs scare me.

One of the beautiful things about beinga human being is that we can emerge from blindness, we can erase a great portion of our ignorance.

I am reminded of a story -- it is attributed to one of the great thinkers (Aristotle, prob) of the era -- where people were in a cave staring at the wall, thinking that was all of life. They lived without ever realizing that there was a whole world out there if they would just turn around, see the opening out of the cave, and leave. They were certain that that was the truth, that little section of the wall at which they were staring.

My point is that we can use our human understanding to receive evidence of the world and our place in it. Blind faith is not really needed.

I hope this made sense.

This is refreshing to hear. Too many people claim to speak for god or to be doing god's will. Pascal said that god, if he exists, is "infinitely incomprehensible", which you seem to agree with, and which I think is sensible. Of course, Pascal's Wager was complete bunk (I wonder if I still have that essay..), but that one point is valid, at least. People of faith can (and, I suppose, should) act according to their interpretation of god's will, but need to remember that compared to god, they are infinitely fallible in their interpretation.



This is Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Good reading.

_________________

That's Plato. Deep stuff.

See Wikipedia for more.

I took this from an article, but I think it's pretty appropriate. It's relavent to Christian faith.

"Faith then has three elements - knowledge, belief, and trust.

Or, if you prefer more modern terms, faith has intellectual, emotional, and volitional elements.

The intellectual knowledge is a belief in the existence of God and the teaching of Scriptures. This is "head" belief in God and Jesus. One may possess this knowledge at varying degrees of acceptance. This knowledge is gained by reading and hearing God's Word."

If one element of faith is knowledge, how can it be deemed "blind"?

A healthy faith is not blind at all. You're always asking and learning about God and His teachings and His love for you and His will for your life.

Discernment is the key. You have to look at things with discernment and wisdom, or else you're looking at the world like a child.

Ahhh, Plato. Of Course. Thanks you two.

SeeThroo, wow! That was very well stated.

Questioning God's plans...but where do you get the answers?

The whole article.

My goodness, you're quick.

To answer my own question: The Wikipedia, natch! It has the answer to everything!

When I say questioning God's plans, I don't mean you should sit and go "what the crap are you doing, God?".
It's more like "What do you want me to do, God. What do you have in store for me?"

Where do I get the answers? it depends. Not everyone's situation is the same. I've had times when I could tell that I wasn't living right by simply looking in the mirror and seeing that I'd lost 40 pounds in a few weeks... Sometimes you can tell what God wants you to do because of situations in your life...Let's say you were excited about something, a trip for example, but you weren't sure if going is what you were supposed to do. You pray about it, and ask God if it's right for you, and if that's what He wants for you. It turns out that you aren't able to go at all. Could it be that you weren't supposed to go in the first place?

Also, you're never alone when you don't know what to do. A church is supposed to be a single unit, a body with one purpose. If I need some advice or help, I seek council in some of the wiser people in my church.

If someone's hand is broken, they have to rely on their other hand to pick up the slack a little more, and to tend to the needs of the injured hand. That's the way a healthy church is meant to be. Help and encouragement and advice is always there.

Did I sufficiently answer your question? I feel like I went all over the place!!

Agent J.

You did terrific!

You stayed on point, too, not all over the place.

If you find comfort in your church, that is wonderful. I guess I have never really felt that way. Maybe it was me; maybe I don't belong there.

They're out there, trust me.

I used to think that there were no good churches...I was raised southern babtist, and all my church experience as a child was negative.

If you wanna find the right one, first pray, then maybe check the yellow pages! Make some phone calls and see what they're all about before you even step through the doors.

I'm lucky to be in the military, because military chapels are usually pretty diversified and try to have services to suit everyone.

When I read Coolguy's post about blind faith, I thought briefly about replying, but didn't want to open a can of worms. My first question for Coolguy would have been: "What gives you the impression that Christianity demands a blind faith?"

I don't believe my faith is blind (Hm, does that mean I have blind faith that my faith isn't blind?!). There is ample evidence -- I would call it proof -- that the Bible is a true book of history. There is more manuscript evidence for the Bible than almost all other ancient documents put together, not to mention external textual and archaeological evidence. We can safely and reasonably conclude that the Bible was written by whom, where, and when it claims to have been written.


This statement hits home for me. I haven't talked much about my past here, but suffice it to say I haven't always been an Evangelical Christian. I used to be very passionate about a completely different religious tradition -- my parents' religion.

I did "consider" it. I "inpected" it, questioned it, tested it. Ultimately, I went a different direction, but I have no doubts that the decision I've made is the right one -- not because I'm super-smart and figured it out, but because this is where God has shown me (through his word and many personal experiences) I should be.

I was just poking through my blog archives and came upon this Belief System Selector. It tells you what religions most fit your belief set. By "selector" they really mean "personality quiz", so keep in mind that it's totally unscientific. I'm gonna take the quiz now to see how much my results differ from the results I got when I took it two years ago. I'll post the results, just for kicks.

Also entertaining is the Cult Selector.

Oh, by the way, the ads on that site are atrocious. Sorry.

_________________

Woah, about a dozen posts since I started typing mine! (How many more will show up before I'm done writing this one?)

Jones, you're right in saying that God is incomprehensible. Fortunately for us, he is a personal God and desires to relate to his creation. He does make himself known to us -- though not fully, since we cannot know him fully -- and has revealed to us everything we need to know about him.

Paul described this concept with the analogy of a mirror. Keep in mind that in the 1st century A.D., mirrors were not as clean and perfectly reflective as our mirrors today. They probably used pieces of polished metal -- bronze, silver, whatever they had available -- that would have shown a muddled reflection, at best.


So, based on this verse, one might call Christian faith cloudy, but certainly not blind.

Probably more scientific than these: Beliefnet.com's Belief-o-Matic.

Man, that quiz was a lot harder than I remember. But I got the same top 5 (top 6, actually) as two years ago, but in a slightly different order:

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (97%)
3. Non-theist (77%)
4. Liberal Quakers (76%)
5. Theravada Buddhism (71%)
6. Neo-Pagan (66%)

It'd be cool to see what you guys get, just for kicks.

_________________

My results:
Your Results:

1. Liberal Quakers (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (99%)
3. Mahayana Buddhism (94%)
4. Neo-Pagan (94%)
5. New Age (92%)
6. Sikhism (92%)
7. Jainism (90%)
8. Hinduism (88%)

It was a pretty interesting survey. Looks like I'ma switching religions. Just Kidding. Actually, I was thinking about checking out those first three. My religiousity needs some research.

That looks like the same quiz but without the nasty ads and with prettier formatting.

_________________

Okay, I did that one. Now, this was just for fun...

Results:
1. Unitarian Universalism (100%) 2. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (98%) 3. Liberal Quakers (95%)4. Neo-Pagan (93%) 5. New Age (90%) 6. Mahayana Buddhism (84%) 7. Theravada Buddhism (82%) 8. Reform Judaism (76%) 9. New Thought (73%) 10. Scientology (69%) 11. Secular Humanism (63%) 12. Orthodox Quaker (62%) 13. Taoism (59%) 14. Hinduism (57%) 15. Jainism (53%) 16. Sikhism (53%) 17. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (52%) 18. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (49%) 19. Bahá'í Faith (48%) 20. Orthodox Judaism (38%) 21. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (33%) 22. Nontheist (33%) 23. Eastern Orthodox (32%) 24. Roman Catholic (32%) 25. Seventh Day Adventist (32%) 26. Islam (28%) 27. Jehovah's Witness (26%)

Oh, and just to see what would happen, I went and changed all my answers to "Not Applicable" or "None of the Above"

Results:
1. Bahá'í Faith (100%) 2. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (100%) 3. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (100%) 4. Jehovah's Witness (100%) 5. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (100%) 6. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (66%) 7. Liberal Quakers (50%) 8. New Thought (33%) 9. Unitarian Universalism (33%) 10. Nontheist (26%) 11. Secular Humanism (26%) 12. Neo-Pagan (13%)

Everything else was 0%.

Interesting...

Scientology in your top 10? Ouch.

_________________