I'm sick and tired of this.. please be advised: the following is a rant!

[tehjessecat]

I once showed you the definition in which faith isn't blind. This is simply not true.

Just because you find a definition does not make it true.

Well a dictionary is the best anyone is going to do so it's just opinionated bickering after that. Nor am I implying that religious faith isn't blind.

[Minimalist]

Dictionary.com

Faith:

2.
belief that is not based on proof:

Pretty well covers it.

[tehjessecat]

Dictionary.com

Faith:

2.
belief that is not based on proof:

Pretty well covers it.

The Bible is not my holy book just as your source is not necessarily mine. I was only posting to refute Liz up there, not get into semantics with other people!

I concede; perhaps you're right. In context, she was speaking of religious faith. We once got into an argument on the meanings of faith so we don't see eye to eye on the matter.

[Lizzle]

Jesse, you had to join this forum just to be a dummy.

Also, that is correct about the "study" - not scientific at all, I just found it interesting. It is likely just someone's "observation," but still interesting nonetheless!

And do show me an instance in which faith isn't "blind."

Minimalist is right - just because someone made a virtue out of blind faith (kind of redundant, eh?), does not make it "true" or whatnot. For a smart person, your rhetoric isn't impressing me.

Also, let's say I believe cows are "holy." Does that mean I should do what they say?! Moooo!

[Loki_999]

Maybe somebody already asked this Lizzie (i skipped a couple of pages) but what forums are you actually a member of (in general terms I mean, don't want the actual sites), what are their topics? How are you getting onto the topic of religious beliefs anyway?

Saying that I understand, had a debate not long ago on evolution vs creationism not long ago on a gaming site.

[tehjessecat]

Jesse, you had to join this forum just to be a dummy.

Well you had to go to bed so I couldn't be a dummy on AIM!

And do show me an instance in which faith isn't "blind."

I am going to bring all the dictionaries I can find over to your house and we'll go over the different uses of the word. Your aversion to a word in the English language only because theists have some stake in it makes me upset. Don't throw away the baby with the bath water. >

Minimalist is right - just because someone made a virtue out of blind faith (kind of redundant, eh?), does not make it "true" or whatnot. For a smart person, your rhetoric isn't impressing me.

I got carried away but turned around and said you were correct. Your reading comprehension isn't impressing me.

Also, let's say I believe cows are "holy." Does that mean I should do what they say?! Moooo!

You missed the discussion my roommates and I had about holy cows and Jesus last week haha.

Saying that I understand, had a debate not long ago on evolution vs creationism not long ago on a gaming site.

I love how gaming site discussions eventually break down into heated debates over things having nothing to do with gaming. Never change.

[little_monkey]

If Jesus had schizophrenia with delusions, why did the first Christians die slow and horrible deaths for something they would have KNOWN to be a lie (Virgin birth, sinless life of Jesus, His death and resurrection)? People will die for what they think is true but really isn't. But no one will do so for what they know is a lie, including the disciples.

That's a myth. Few christians ever died for their beliefs.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RupCfnbgChM

[Lizzle]

I didn't even know that part was a myth. Thanks for enlightening me, seriously.

[Anomalocaris]

If Jesus had schizophrenia with delusions, why did the first Christians die slow and horrible deaths for something they would have KNOWN to be a lie (Virgin birth, sinless life of Jesus, His death and resurrection)? People will die for what they think is true but really isn't. But no one will do so for what they know is a lie, including the disciples.

Why would the ones who died have known? In the first century gods were everywhere, unsophisticated people believed every one of them. Men are said to be gods by official doctrine. Caesar and Augustus were both deemed to really be gods by imperial policy, would the gullible find it hard to believe that another from some exotic eastern fringes of the world was also a man who is a god? Imperial Rome was also a most cosmopolitan place. Cults of all sorts from all parts of the empire, death cults, resurrection cults, cults of local deities from the east and west, foreign deities granted elevated status by association with roman deities, foreign deities granded respect because they have particular traits that cater to particular emotional needs, permeat the lower reaches of the entire society to ensnare the gullible, the insecure, the wishthinking, and down right foolish.

Given 1st century sophistication of truth finding, only those who lived within perhaps 1 life time of 1st century of 1AD could reasonably have gone to the origin of the myth and pieced together what had happened to a obscure preacher of no import in his own life time. At the beginning of most religions and cults, when the cult was still on the fringes, most of the converts would have been the uneducated, the uncultured, the impressionable, or the emotionally or psychologically troubled elements of society. Would they have bothered to check if the straw they think they grasped was based on reality? And in the 20th and 21st centuries, how many people have died for what are patently rediculous lies? Heaven's gate? Jim Jones? Branch Davidians? And how many of those would have become heroic martyers had circumstances existed to catapult one of these to the status of religion?

Only once a critical mass of hysteria has been achieved, could slightly more skeptical and educated people be gradually entrained into the mess. By the time increasing amount of skepticism would have been needed to defy prevelent conventional "wisdom" and verify the basis, the resources available for an ancient to check the real life history of some long dead preacher, obscure in his own life time, would have been gone.

[Lizzle]

Chuck, you said that perfectly - at least much better than I could have myself!