Yep, bible has a lot of sections about having the faith of a child. Believing without needing proof.
And there are no ongoing studies, clinical trials, etc regarding the existence or non-existence of god. And of course this IS a "shitpost".
That's probably because the current Abrahamic incarnation of god and his attributes are carefully designed to be a non-falsifiable claim.
So the point is actually rendered moot. God is according to the True Believer invisible, intangible, only works in "mysterious ways," and cannot be observed to have any influence on the universe, nor leaves any evidence of his existence except "faith." By those metrics, it's irrelevant whether he exists or not. A hypothetical force that exists but doesn't affect anything is interchangeable from a functional standpoint from something that doesn't exist.
The way faith is treated in the First Century doesn't translate well to modern audiences. Having faith of a child isn't an analogy to a child being gullible. It's an analogy to the way a child trusts in and depends on his parents. Trust, arguably, would be a better translation than faith in many instances.
Faith for ancient religious peoples wasn't about believing without proof. That would be as ridiculous for a First Century Jew as it is for us. Faith is being persuaded to a conclusion by the evidence.
Those are apologetics. There's no point in time where faith has ever required proof or evidence. Trust is not a better translation. Trust can be broken between two people and requires a mutual exchange of equals. That is not what religion is. It is not two equal parties exchanging trust. It's one party with all the perceived power telling the other how it's going to be without being able to change the rules, disagree, doubt, etc. It requires total and complete faith to accept. Not trust. Faith.
So while what you wrote sounds nice, it's all bullshit.
No, sorry. I try to be deferential when talking about this stuff, but this is pretty cut and dry, and I'm afraid you're just wrong here. This is Greek--not theology. πίστις is the word we're talking about. It shares the common root with πείθω--"to persuade" (i.e., that evidence is compelling or trustworthy). πίστις is the same word you would use in describing the veracity of a tribunal's judgment (for example, "I have πίστις that the jurors in NY got the verdict right/wrong"). The Greeks used the word to personify honesty, trust, and persuasiveness prior to the existence of Christianity (although someone who knows Attic or is better versed in Greek mythology feel free to correct me). The word is inherently tied up with persuasion, confidence, and trust since long before the New Testament. The original audience of the New Testament would have understood the meaning of the word without depending on any prior relation to religion.
Is trust always a better translation? Of course not--and that's why, you'll notice, I didn't say that (and if it were, one would hope that many of the very well educated translators of Bibles would have used it). But I think you can agree that the concept is also difficult for English to handle (since trust in a person, trust in a deity, and trust in a statement are similar but not quite the same thing, and the same goes for belief in a proposition, belief in a person, and belief in an ideal or value, to say nothing of analogous concepts like loyalty and integrity).
The point is that πίστις--faith--absolutely does not mean belief without evidence, and Christianity since its inception has never taught that. English also doesn't use the word "faith" to imply the absence of evidence, and we don't need to appeal to another language to understand that. It's why the phrase "blind faith" exists (and the phrase is generally pejorative in religious circles as well as secular ones).
Now, if you think the evidence that convinces Christians to conclude that Jesus' followers saw Him after His death is inadequate, that's perfectly valid and a reasonable criticism of Christianity--and if you want to talk about that, that would be apologetics.
In any event, if you're going to call something bullshit, you better have a lot of faith in the conclusion you're drawing. ;)
Yep, bible has a lot of sections about having the faith of a child. Believing without needing proof.
And there are no ongoing studies, clinical trials, etc regarding the existence or non-existence of god. And of course this IS a "shitpost".
That's probably because the current Abrahamic incarnation of god and his attributes are carefully designed to be a non-falsifiable claim.
So the point is actually rendered moot. God is according to the True Believer invisible, intangible, only works in "mysterious ways," and cannot be observed to have any influence on the universe, nor leaves any evidence of his existence except "faith." By those metrics, it's irrelevant whether he exists or not. A hypothetical force that exists but doesn't affect anything is interchangeable from a functional standpoint from something that doesn't exist.
See also: Russel's Teapot.
The way faith is treated in the First Century doesn't translate well to modern audiences. Having faith of a child isn't an analogy to a child being gullible. It's an analogy to the way a child trusts in and depends on his parents. Trust, arguably, would be a better translation than faith in many instances.
Faith for ancient religious peoples wasn't about believing without proof. That would be as ridiculous for a First Century Jew as it is for us. Faith is being persuaded to a conclusion by the evidence.
Those are apologetics. There's no point in time where faith has ever required proof or evidence. Trust is not a better translation. Trust can be broken between two people and requires a mutual exchange of equals. That is not what religion is. It is not two equal parties exchanging trust. It's one party with all the perceived power telling the other how it's going to be without being able to change the rules, disagree, doubt, etc. It requires total and complete faith to accept. Not trust. Faith.
So while what you wrote sounds nice, it's all bullshit.
No, sorry. I try to be deferential when talking about this stuff, but this is pretty cut and dry, and I'm afraid you're just wrong here. This is Greek--not theology. πίστις is the word we're talking about. It shares the common root with πείθω--"to persuade" (i.e., that evidence is compelling or trustworthy). πίστις is the same word you would use in describing the veracity of a tribunal's judgment (for example, "I have πίστις that the jurors in NY got the verdict right/wrong"). The Greeks used the word to personify honesty, trust, and persuasiveness prior to the existence of Christianity (although someone who knows Attic or is better versed in Greek mythology feel free to correct me). The word is inherently tied up with persuasion, confidence, and trust since long before the New Testament. The original audience of the New Testament would have understood the meaning of the word without depending on any prior relation to religion.
Is trust always a better translation? Of course not--and that's why, you'll notice, I didn't say that (and if it were, one would hope that many of the very well educated translators of Bibles would have used it). But I think you can agree that the concept is also difficult for English to handle (since trust in a person, trust in a deity, and trust in a statement are similar but not quite the same thing, and the same goes for belief in a proposition, belief in a person, and belief in an ideal or value, to say nothing of analogous concepts like loyalty and integrity).
The point is that πίστις--faith--absolutely does not mean belief without evidence, and Christianity since its inception has never taught that. English also doesn't use the word "faith" to imply the absence of evidence, and we don't need to appeal to another language to understand that. It's why the phrase "blind faith" exists (and the phrase is generally pejorative in religious circles as well as secular ones).
Now, if you think the evidence that convinces Christians to conclude that Jesus' followers saw Him after His death is inadequate, that's perfectly valid and a reasonable criticism of Christianity--and if you want to talk about that, that would be apologetics.
In any event, if you're going to call something bullshit, you better have a lot of faith in the conclusion you're drawing. ;)