Faith 2

Ok...I just finished reviewing Paul's blog on my "clarification of faith" and didn't see much activity other than a Mr. Kline, which must mean everyone else must be in agreement with me :)

(and by the way thank-you Paul for the heads-up)

Well first of all...kudos to Mr. Kline for taking me to task and offering some counterpoints to my arguments. I will summarize his counter arguments as best I can in numerical order.

1) I made the statement that ‎"Everyday there are things you don't or can't see directly that influence your life ...you don't see the air you
breathe (unless you live in L.A.) you don't see the gravity that holds you to the earth or the radio waves that bring music into your home or car."

2) Mr. Kline called this statement "absolute nonsense" as well as calling it a ridiculous post and then proceeded to reveal that atheists when they say "they only believe what they can see" don't intend to be taken literally. He went on to say that he "believes" in those things I stated as being invisible, because they can be experimentally verfied and not because they are invisible.

3) Next he labelled my use of the word faith and its application as pure sophistry and proclaimed it doesn't stand up to "analysis".

4) Mr. Kline feels that because those things cited as invisible can be made visible through various means, that this disqualifies them as being used as a faith model because God cannot be made visible.

The conclusion is his statement that he holds no "faith" in anything that cannot be verified.

I think I have been fair to his position but if you suspect otherwise his comments are available on Paul McGaugh's page

Response : Clearly absent from the rebuttal is any statement from Mr. Kline as to how he defines "faith", his case is based only on tearing down my definition and its application to today's world.

As I stated at the beginning of my clarification, the definition I
used was not my own but was taken from the bible. My case rests on defending what the bible DEFINES as faith and demonstrate that it is internally consistent and relate this definition from scripture to the real world by use of examples. From here Mr. Kline is free to take exception to the examples I use or choose any definition of "faith" he desires for his own argument...but what he is not free to do, of course, is redefine my definition of faith to fit his rebuttal or object that my definition is wrong because it is not his definition.

Objection to paragraph 1)

I'm going to make an assumption here and say that when Mr Kline says my statement, as quoted above in paragraph 1, is "absolute nonsense", he means to say it is false. My statement made two claims ...First - There are things we come in contact with on a daily basis that we cannot see regardless of how else we may verify their existence)... Second - These things we cannot see influence our lives.

Now its hard for me to see anything false or misleading in any of these two statements and Mr. Kline does not immediately clarify which of the two if not both he believes is untrue and why, other than to say later that some of the things I mentioned as invisible can be made to be visible ...which of course DOES NOT negate the fact that in their PRESENT state they are INVISIBLE. So how my statement is false is a mystery. You will notice I only claimed that some things (in their ordinary and "everyday" state) cannot be seen, not that there existence cannot be verified by some other means. Mr. Kline is substituting my use of the word "invisible" for his understanding of the word "existence" which of course is "absolute nonsense" :)

Objection paragraph 2)

To the comment that atheists should not be taken seriously when they say "they only believe what they can see." I would say that by rephrasing it in the positive "Atheists do believe in things they cannot see" that this only agrees with my comment that both the believer and atheist operate under the biblical definition of faith. To Mr. Kline's confession that he believes in invisible things because they can be experimentally verified I would say ...so do believers.

And now for the $64,000 question, the question I believe Mr. Kline is really asking in a round about way...Does this mean that believers have faith in things that cannot be verified while atheists don't? To answer this question to the satisfaction of both the atheist and believer I must introduce one more concept to this discussion. That concept is "proof". What is it? Is there more than one kind? How does it affect our view of "Faith"? While this question is easy to ask the answer requires another page of explanation to give a sufficient answer...an answer I give in my debate with Miss Atheist...so I will beg for your patience and at the same time keep you in suspense for just a little while longer.

Objection paragraph 3)

To the accusation that my explanation is sheer sophistry...excuse me while I look that up ...ok it means superficially plausible..I can only say my case is dependent on the definition of one word "faith" as used in the bible...Since Mr. Kline has used no references from that book, he cannot say that the bible doesn't teach that...nor can he legitimately expand the meaning of that word to include additional meanings that go beyond the biblical definition. If he wants to refute the definition or my understanding of it let him start with the book of Genesis.

SUMMARY

To reiterate, my case is intended to defend the biblical definition of "faith". Faith is directed at an object and not to something that does not exist. In that respect it can be said to incorporate elements of trust or reliance. When that faith is directed towards authority or from authority it finds itself expressed in obedience. To emphasise a point here ...I recall from the bible that Jesus commended a Roman officer for recognizing that Jesus had authority even over disease and that all Jesus had to do is issue the command and by his command his servant would be healed he called this faith ...a greater faith he had not seen in all of Israel.

This trust or reliance which are components of faith are something that both the believer and unbeliever have in common but not necessarily to the same degree and not necessarily in the same direction if you don't believe me you needn't search any further than Mr. Kline's own statement... he holds no "faith" in anything he cannot verify...which by my logic must mean he does have faith in something ...now assuming then that Mr. Kline is trusting, relying, or depending on certain things, conditions, or people in his life regardless of the fact they may not be IMMEDIATELY visible, indicates he is exercising a faith, dependence, reliance, or trust in accordance with the BIBLICAL DEFINITION. Now for those who are theologically minded I must draw a distinction from this definition of faith to that faith which is sufficient to save. Is this faith (from a biblical perspective) sufficient to save a human soul? Sadly no...that faith must have as its objective center for reliance, trust, dependence, and obedience, on God himself.

Now someone like Mr. Kline might object by saying " I can see the people in whom I have faith...I can't see God." To which I will give a biblical response and an extra-biblical response (outside the bible). The biblical answer (for those of faith) is the one Jesus gave to his disciples when they asked him to let them see God to which he replied "If you have seen me... you have seen the Father" and to Thomas he said "blessed are those who don't see yet believe."

The extra-biblical response (excluding the bible) is ...One does not have to see God to know that he exists ...which is covered in my debate with Miss Atheist coming soon if there are no further objections or questions on faith.