![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
good question
Dec. 23rd, 2005 08:44 amEugene Robinson does it again: Can you imagine a more faithless pursuit than trying to prove the existence of God?
I've noted that before. Faith is defined as belief without (objective) evidence. Robinson quotes Paul: "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.".
I have my reasons, my experiences, for my beliefs, which I also acknowledge are in no way scientifically verifiable. It doesn't make them any less "real", only not scientific (well, outside of a psychology study ;-) ).
But then again, my justifications for my faith don't require "every word of the bible to be true" in a literal or even figurative sense. Just as I don't believe it is right to put "God In A Box" (which is an ID tactic, God of the Gaps, guarenteed to fail when the gaps are filled), I also don't believe it is right to put "God In A Book". A million books have been written about God; a thousand different biblical translations are out there. If I were to take a literal reading, do I take the KJB's version of Christ's answer to the question, "Are you the King of the Jews?" ("You have said so."), or do I take the NIV's interpretive approach ("Yes, it is as you say.")? In English, these are extremely different statements -- the former puts the decision of faith back on the questioner as I feel it belongs (and fits with every other statement Jesus says in reponse to such questions - remember how he put the question of faith BACK to Simon/Peter and let Peter make the decision). Yet in other places, I interpret the NIV to be far more accurate than the KJB (and in others, the (n)ASV better than both).
The power and gift of religious freedom in this country is a power to choose, and the Spirit has given us these many translations in order to allow us to find the values in them that He wants us to find, not to get into wars over which one is right. There is certainty and there is vagueness and there is the responsibility of the believer to think about it, not to accept blindly that artificial, man-made certainty that is thrown at them from a pulpit. Or even from a parent.
It astounds me, sometimes. Paul is very clear in a reading repeated at nearly every Christian wedding in the world: Faith, Hope, and Love, and of these the greatest is Love.
Would that others could choose that Loving each other is more important than conditioning and indoctrinating a weak and fragile faith upon them.
I've noted that before. Faith is defined as belief without (objective) evidence. Robinson quotes Paul: "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.".
I have my reasons, my experiences, for my beliefs, which I also acknowledge are in no way scientifically verifiable. It doesn't make them any less "real", only not scientific (well, outside of a psychology study ;-) ).
But then again, my justifications for my faith don't require "every word of the bible to be true" in a literal or even figurative sense. Just as I don't believe it is right to put "God In A Box" (which is an ID tactic, God of the Gaps, guarenteed to fail when the gaps are filled), I also don't believe it is right to put "God In A Book". A million books have been written about God; a thousand different biblical translations are out there. If I were to take a literal reading, do I take the KJB's version of Christ's answer to the question, "Are you the King of the Jews?" ("You have said so."), or do I take the NIV's interpretive approach ("Yes, it is as you say.")? In English, these are extremely different statements -- the former puts the decision of faith back on the questioner as I feel it belongs (and fits with every other statement Jesus says in reponse to such questions - remember how he put the question of faith BACK to Simon/Peter and let Peter make the decision). Yet in other places, I interpret the NIV to be far more accurate than the KJB (and in others, the (n)ASV better than both).
The power and gift of religious freedom in this country is a power to choose, and the Spirit has given us these many translations in order to allow us to find the values in them that He wants us to find, not to get into wars over which one is right. There is certainty and there is vagueness and there is the responsibility of the believer to think about it, not to accept blindly that artificial, man-made certainty that is thrown at them from a pulpit. Or even from a parent.
It astounds me, sometimes. Paul is very clear in a reading repeated at nearly every Christian wedding in the world: Faith, Hope, and Love, and of these the greatest is Love.
Would that others could choose that Loving each other is more important than conditioning and indoctrinating a weak and fragile faith upon them.
