What's Sinful About Wanting Proof?

[jgh7]

Thomas in the bible wanted proof that Jesus had been resurrected. I think the story goes he wanted to stick his fingers through the holes in Jesus' hands to make sure it was the same Jesus who was crucified and thus now resurrected.

He is referred to negatively throughout history as doubting Thomas. There are numerous sayings in the bible along the lines of it being better to believe without seeing than to see and believe. I equate this to mean that faith without absolute proof is more righteous than belief from absolute proof, and that desiring absolute proof in order to believe could be viewed as sinful.

Why is that so? What is more righteous about believing without solid proof? Conversely, what is sinful/wrong about wanting solid proof in order to believe?

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 19 by ttruscott]

To believe by proof is to not believe by your free will but by the will of the one who coerced you with the proof.

I'm not sure that tracks.

By having free will you can believe in what you want no matter the proof (or lack of proof).

While you don't exactly define what you mean or don't mean by a free will it does seem that any decision is ipso facto a free decision and the word free has no essential meaning.

I use Free to mean neither coerced to choose any particular option nor constrained from being able to choose any option pertinent to the choice. If a choice is forced upon a person by an influence they can't resist, their choice was not a free choice. If a logical option is not made available to the person by any means then the choosing is not by a free will but by a bound or constrained will. A forced or coerced choice is the choice of the one coercing or forcing the option to be chosen and not a choice by the person himself.

Proof of results of a choice destroy the choice as it forces the person to go with the proof, not with what they themselves think about the choice. I contend that if a person asks "Which hand is the penny in?" but lets you see which hand has the penny, you do not have a choice at all...you are following the proof you saw.

[marco]

The central point is truthful reliable reports should be believed. Something is reliable if it is based on established fact, has precedent, is reasonable, logical and can be substantiated by others.

The next-to-central point is how do we tell if a report is truthful and reliable? Are we to assume that those who wish to deceive us are not well versed in giving the semblance of truth? As for Jesus giving information to the women, he could have removed all doubt by giving them a piece of information that only he and the apostles shared. Or was that too complicated?

[marco]

We expect evidence when it comes to somewhat ordinary claims, why shouldn't we expect the same when it comes to extraordinary ones?

This is a perfectly sound observation. Faith is the funny thing that believes "because it is absurd." (Tertullian). It is the thing that can move mountains. Muhammad wisely observed that rather than expecting the mountain to make its way to him, he would go to the mountain.

In John 20: 29 we have: "Jesus said unto him, Thomas, because you have seen me, you have believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." Strange how wisdom of the 1st century becomes stupidity in the 21st. No sane person would heed Christ's advice now, nor commend the gullible.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 3 by JehovahsWitness]

The central point is truthful reliable reports should be believed. Something is reliable if it is based on established fact, has precedent, is reasonable, logical and can be substantiated by others.

This is why I don't believe the Bible.
Its central stories are NOT based on established fact, I don't see it as reasonable or logical and it's odd that the wider populace of Jerusalem let Jesus's ministry pass by them completely without comment, given the dearth of documentation.
Just because three Heaven's Gate cultists could 'substantiate' the claims made by another Heaven's Gate cultist, doesn't mean that this settles the issue.

[ttruscott]

Faith is the funny thing that believes "because it is absurd." (Tertullian).

If Tertullian really said this then he got it wrong...

Faith is is a funny hope that persists while holding proof in abeyance...

[ttruscott]

No sane person would heed Christ's advice now, nor commend the gullible.

Anyone who heed's Christ advice now is insane... a blanket denigration.

[marco]

Its central stories are NOT based on established fact, I don't see it as reasonable or logical and it's odd that the wider populace of Jerusalem let Jesus's ministry pass by them completely without comment, given the dearth of documentation.

If we wanted to know about Jesus we would ask his family. Unfortunately they seem to have thought he was unhinged and Jesus obligingly did not allow them to be admitted. We are not inundated with statements from his mother, though the dying Christ belatedly gave her some attention from the cross.

If people well versed in Scripture opposed him, why should we think they are the bad ones?

[FarWanderer]

To sin means to miss the target (like in archery).

I am not a Christian, but I do believe in sin in the sense that I believe there are improper ways to live life. As for Christianity, skepticism of the resurrection is most certainly a sin if there ever was one.

[marco]

To sin means to miss the target (like in archery).

As for Christianity, skepticism of the resurrection is most certainly a sin if there ever was one.

At one time that might have got a person burned to death but modern Christianity can accept that the resurrection is metaphorical, despite what Paul says. David Jenkins, former Archbishop of York, made headlines with his challenges to orthodoxy. As a consequence, three days after his ordination, God struck York Minster with a lightning bolt, causing vast destruction in the fire that destroyed the old roof. God won't be mocked.

[Monta]

To sin means to miss the target (like in archery).

As for Christianity, skepticism of the resurrection is most certainly a sin if there ever was one.

At one time that might have got a person burned to death but modern Christianity can accept that the resurrection is metaphorical, despite what Paul says. David Jenkins, former Archbishop of York, made headlines with his challenges to orthodoxy. As a consequence, three days after his ordination, God struck York Minster with a lightning bolt, causing vast destruction in the fire that destroyed the old roof. God won't be mocked.

I am still laughing...

As for Thomas, I feel the Lord saw innocence in him, he wanted proof. The Lord understood. This is quite human. This is opposite with those who with some self esteem or self righteousness demand proof from God; doubt they will get it.