Zounds asks-
If we harden our hearts, for instance, are we not rejecting it?
What does this even mean? Harden our hearts?
It's an archaic phrase which actually demonstrates the retarding effect of religious beliefs on the advancement of human knowledge, since ancient men LITERALLY believed it as a FACT that the main organ of cognition (thinking and feeling) was located in the TORSO: the heart, and not the head, which is where even a modern 4 yr old knows the BRAIN is located.
But even despite man gaining knowledge of the TRUE role of the brain via scientific discovery, the Bible never mentions the brain, and worse: God is even quoted as giving credit to what was the crowning acheivement of his creation, the human brain to the HEART. Why would God allow that to happen?
Why would God create a sacrifical system of offering kidneys as the organs of decision-making (again, the role of the brain's frontal lobes), which ALSO just happened to be based on the anatomical ignorance of ancient men? Instead, God missed the boat by failing to provide solid evidence of his being the "Intelligent Designer", instead choosing to send Jesus to put on a magic show showing SIGNS and miracles. (ALL the more ironic, since even in spite of witnessing Moses perform miracles firsthand, the Isrealites failed THEIR FAITH test, so the value of SIGNS to build faith is KNOWN to be inferior to NOT seeing evidence, only relying on UNSEEN claims)
Implication is God is willfully perpetuating human ignorance, even being the SOURCE of falsehoods and lies. God seemingly doesn't like humans cooperating (Tower of Babel, anyone?) to gain their beliefs from observation, which only undermines the God-endorsed method of relying on FAITH based on what you DON'T know (unless you're willing to do what the Gnostics did, and claim that one ALSO gained knowledge as a GIFT from God, where recipients just KNEW in their hearts what was absolutely true, based on faith).
Of course, being an atheist, it's no coincidence that the humans who wrote the Torah went with the best scientific knowledge available to them in their time, so they HAD to rely on common-knowledge of the day (which science subsequently revealed as WRONG, eg finding the true role of the brain via clinical work on warriors who experienced brain damage in battles that didn't kill them, but left them with cognitive deficits). The misbelief had persisted for a few millenia before, but nevertheless it was INCORRECT; worse, the Bible's literality retarded human advancement for a millenia AFTER the true role of the brain was discovered, as well, due to the reluctance to accept any idea that challenged the Bible.
(So to get back to the question: a "hardened heart" is analogous to saying someone is thick-skulled, or has "rocks for brains".)
Christians use a familiar approach to excuse the Bible's being incorrect when the evidence from science becomes so obvious as to be undeniably true: they back-peddle to claiming it wasn't meant as LITERAL in the first-place, and it is only a poetic speech, forgetting that the literal belief preceded the poetic usage (it's a similar tactic of a child claiming "but I was ONLY kidding! I didn't MEAN it!" after insulting someone).
We've seen the same tactic used for the creation account (vs evolution), flat round Earth (vs spherical), firmament (vs WHAT, exactly?), Earth at center of God's creation (vs Copernican model), etc. People like Bruno have been put to death as heretics at the stake by the RCC for daring to publicly question ANY statement in the Bible when they had evidence on which to question the literal reading.
zounds said-
Thomas didn't have faith. He doubted. He demanded evidence - and Jesus promptly gave it to him.
Yes, but don't forget that Jesus followed it with a reproof and chiding him by saying that Thomas' belief was LESS WORTHY than that of someone who didn't demand EVIDENCE, but relied purely on FAITH, accepting the claims of others based on THEIR belief. To a Christian, asking for evidence is a SIGN that THEY lack faith; doubting one's own FAITH NS aaking for SIGNS is a stunning admission of weakness, per the Bible.
jgnat said-
That's right. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. It's a leap in to empty space trusting that God will catch you.
And not only that, being proud to BRAG to other about KNOWING WITHOUT ANY DOUBT that they'll be caught! That would be "showing their faith" to others, and in their minds, being caught actually DEMANDS they declare it to others!
Zounds-
I got nothing. What am I missing?
As you and others point out, the FAILURE of faith is excused by a quite typical MO: blame the victim. Per the Bible, if you don't feel the blessing you MUST be doing something wrong and it's YOUR fault, since it's not like God COULDN'T exist! That would mean the believer would have to question THEIR faith in God, and that's IMPOSSIBLE, since they're NEVER wrong on anything!
Heck, Fernando showed that here:
My experience of faith is that of a higher level of consciousness and intelligence - an awakening of the divine that exists in very human.
Ordinary people who are persons of faith - spiritual persons - are able to see or discern things from another time, place or realm which consequently are hidden to the natural/physical/carnal/temporal/religious man - in particular the self-righteous, smug, and intelligent Pharisee.
That's a classic approach, based on a turn-the-tables, paradoxical topsy-turvy World of Jesus, where the most uneducated and least-curious is the one who's really KNOWS what's going on. They are given a "higher level of consciousness" (which is a rather arrogant claim, in and of itself!), a charge which they defend by quickly pointing to their example only reflecting to the "glory of God".
It's curious that faith DEMANDS suppression of obvious and undeniable evidence, since it's a threat to THEIR FAITH. Believers HAVE to put on their cognitive blinders on to avoid challenges to their FAITH. We saw that in the recent DNA thread, where someone who clearly had no knowledge of biology felt THEY were entitled to offer their ignorant opinion on the methods of palentology, based only on THEIR belief in God. Offering one's opinion, when you don't know bupkis of the subject except what you WANT to be true? THAT'S the epitome of TRUE arrogance, feeling that one's uneducated opinion outweighs those who've dedicated their entire LIVES to studying the subject and working daily to advance knowledge.
It's not surprising, as the Bible constantly deprecates the wisdom of men and ORDERS one to share their faith with others; it's an anti-intellectual bias that leads to groups like JW DISCOURAGING education and "Worldly wisdom". It's the American version of the Taliban, who believe based on their beliefs, and KNOW they're RIGHT and everyone else is WRONG since their Holy Book tells them so.
TEC said:
Yes. Faith is the assurance of something that one hopes for. Faith is knowing (confidence/no doubt) that what one hopes for will come to pass. But faith in what one hopes for is based on something, and if on something, that something is evidence.
I see you're not yet convinced of what constitutes visible evidence vs unseen evidence, hence you aren't accepting the Bible's own definition of faith? Maybe you don't catch that YOUR FAITH is what is shown to OTHERS, and IS the visible evidence that supports YOUR reward and hope which is supposed to support your claim of deserving of being rewarded by Jesus with Heavenly existence.
To resurrect the 'buying a refrigerator' analogy with a physical receipt being given by the clerk to promise future delivery, it would be like showing YOUR NEIGHBORS the written promise to deliver, as if that would somehow have any bearing on the store actually following through on the delivery of the refrigerator, as if the STORE is ordering you to conduct informal advertising for them or they WON'T actually deliver?
See, that receipt relies on the concept of an independent impartial 3rd party existing who can RENDER JUSTICE if the other party fails to perform as they promised; however, since Biblical faith is said to come from God, who are you going to appeal to, if God and Jesus fail to deliver on their promises? Are you going to take God to small-claims court?
You're in the position of Job, then, and you'd have to appeal to God to hear the case AGAINST God! Obviously a silly premise by today's standards of justice, since any judge involved in a matter as one of the parties would be required to recuse himself from hearing the case, if only due to the APPEARANCE of an obvious conflict of interest.
But the obvious question is, have you ever been convinced BEYOND ANY DOUBT that something would happen, but it didn't come to pass? i.e. have you EVER been incorrect in your beliefs before? Have you EVER been wrong, despite being absolutely convinced you were RIGHT?
Adam
