BellaOnline Forums Religion and Spirituality Philosophy Is Blind faith a good idea?

I don't think that blind faith is a good idea because it can hinder a person from thinking for his or her self. Blind faith can also lead to fanaticism. Since religion can often have contradicting and confusing elements, blind faith can lead a believer astray instead of improving his or her life.

As this is the philosophy forum, I think I'm fairly safe....

'Blind faith' to me is blinkered thinking'...
That is to say, even acknowledging that other creeds exist, but refusing to learn from, or of, them, and resolutely remaining with a single point of view, even though legitimate challenges might exist....

I would welcome Christians discussing Buddhist teachings and philosophy with me, but unfortunately, to date, dicussions with Christians - both here and on other boards has resulted largely in discussion focussed solely on Christian religious belief... a bit one-sided really, to say the least....
This has been because, inspite of my inviting them, Christians have declined any invitation on my part to learn more about Buddhism, and have apparently resolutely refused to entertain the idea of even examining Buddhist teachings in a small way.
Nobody has yet seen fit to offer me an explanation, so I can only surmise or assume, that there is a fear there; a reluctance to engage in such discussion because they are afraid of learning something that may possibly influence them in another direction.

That is not, and never will be, my intention.

If their Christian faith is strong, then nothing can harm it, surely...? But broadening the mind and understanding other ideologies can surely, only be constructive?
If perchance they are persuaded that there are more facets to the Spiritual Divinity they hold so dear, then surely it can only serve to make them more 'complete' individuals, rather than people who practise 'Blind faith'...?

Jesus says we live not by sight but by faith.

Pardon?

Didn't he also say that there are none so blind as those who will not see?
Perception and understanding can only be complete if you take in the whole picture...if you (generic) just look at a pixel, instead of standing back and taking in the whole panoramic landscape, then your (generic) perception and understanding of anything is going to be narrowed and flawed...
In order to be able to assess and comment on the view, we first need to be able to see it in totality, before meriting the right to comment....

Do you(specific) "see" what I mean?

...Nope, I guess he didn't....Sorry.

The origins of the phrase, although mildly altered, can be found in Matthew 13:13
13:13 "Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing, see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand".

Jeremiah 5:21 "Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not"

Isaiah 6:9-10 " And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear you indeed, but understand not; and see indeed, but perceive not.
Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart."

This saying has its roots in the Bible, specifically Jer. 5:21 (King James version): "Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not."

But it still underpins my point....
I still maintain that in order to be able to assess and evaluate a discussion, you need to 'see' the aspects from all sides....

How can you say that the Bible is the only book that does that? Have you read other scriptures? or asked others? I agree with Bible when it says - " Seek and you will find", but not with your other statement.

I don't think that the Bible is the only book that read its readers heart. There are other books, religious or not, that can touch the reader's heart.

There are a lot of contradictions in the Bible and you can find them even if you are are not looking for them. The Bible was written by men from different times and with different perspectives, so there are bound to be contradictions.

What was the period during which Bible was written?

I'm with Alexandra on this. TexasDave has a point about finding what you're seeking in the Bible, but I contend that that is because the Bible is inconsistent and sometimes deliberately vague, with both positive and negative messages mixed together. Thus, if you are blinded to the problems in the Bible, you will seek out only the good parts and will try to blend them into some sort of cohesive message to live by. If, on the other hand, you are blinded to the potential good in the Bible, you will end up seeing only the negative messages and will end up with the impression that the Bible is outdated, hateful, and only useful as a tool to hypocrites and control-freaks.

The truth is somewhere in the middle. It is actually a group of philosophical teachings and moral rules that paint a picture of Judaic societies over two-thousand years ago. Some of these teachings and rules still hold up today, while others seem archaic and even barbaric compared to modern day standards of morality and civility.

If your vision of it is either painted all white or painted all black, you're not seeing the full picture.

I think the first Bible was written about 50 to 100 yrs. after Jesus was crucified.