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?

[H.sapiens]

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?

At least, as Ronald Reagan said, "Trust, but verify!"

[imhereforyou]

[Replying to post 21 by ttruscott]

the word free has no essential meaning.

With God, probably not much if any.
Humanity is doomed to suffer for the actions of a couple people the God placed in an area telling them don't do this knowing they could and would.
True free will?
No
Free will in a box? Maybe. But that's not true free will as far as I'm concerned.

[wiploc]

Conversely, what is sinful/wrong about wanting solid proof in order to believe?

That's just what sin is: doubting or disobeying. And doubting is the larger part of that. The first sin wasn't when Eve tasted the apple, it was when she entertained the serpent's argument that god may not have had her best interests in mind when he forbade eating the apple.

To want proof before believing is to doubt, which is to sin.

If you don't see anything wrong with doubt, then you don't see anything wrong with sin. But if you do think sin is wrong, then that's your answer to why doubt is wrong: because it is sin.

[ttruscott]

But that's not true free will as far as I'm concerned.

You still haven't defined what free will IS for you...

[marco]

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

Anyone who heeds Christ advice now is insane... a blanket denigration.

This is unhelpful.

I am referring specifically to the advice: "Do not ask for proof." There is no denigration involved, since it seems common sense that people will obviously ignore this. I know Christ was talking about a specific case but his generalisation that "they are blessed who believe without seeing" is, as I said, BAD advice today. There are scams all over.

[imhereforyou]

But that's not true free will as far as I'm concerned.

You still haven't defined what free will IS for you...

I've found, on here, what one defines for themselves oft doesn't matter. Some will say 'Yeah, you're right' and others will the say 'Nope, you're wrong'.
But to appease you:
Free will is the ability to do anything without consequence (good or bad). If there are consequences for one's free will, then that negates TRUE free will.

[ttruscott]

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

Anyone who heeds Christ advice now is insane... a blanket denigration.

This is unhelpful.

I am referring specifically to the advice: "Do not ask for proof." There is no denigration involved, since it seems common sense that people will obviously ignore this. I know Christ was talking about a specific case but his generalisation that "they are blessed who believe without seeing" is, as I said, BAD advice today. There are scams all over.

OK I see what you mean. But if you are the recipient of GOD's promise, Romans 8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose., what's to worry about? ...There is much more to the life HE has given us than punishments.

Do I have PROOF that the letter from Nigeria is a scam? No but I sure believe it is.... Do preachers run scams on TV? I do think so though I have no proof. Faith that by rejecting the play, either secular or religious, will be good for me serves me better than seeking the elusive proof about Madame Genevieve of the Bank of Monaco or preacher Popoff and his tiny communion cup made from the true cross. If I can't find the proof a scam is a scam am I am enticed to believe it...the fate of those condemned already for unbelief?

[Monta]

[Replying to post 36 by imhereforyou]


"Free will is the ability to do anything without consequence (good or bad). If there are consequences for one's free will, then that negates TRUE free will."

First time I've heard that definition.

I thought free-will was about freedom on inner levels to think for ourselves, to agree or not, to choose this or that.

[marco]

OK I see what you mean. But if you are the recipient of GOD's promise, Romans 8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose., what's to worry about? ...There is much more to the life HE has given us than punishments.

Do I have PROOF that the letter from Nigeria is a scam? No but I sure believe it is....

You are arguing for my point. Not only do I disbelieve the letter from Nigeria, but I distrust the letter from heaven. Is there a difference? Both require what seems unquestioning trust. Is it bad to withhold that trust until certainty knocks at the door? Go well.

[ttruscott]

Free will is the ability to do anything without consequence (good or bad). If there are consequences for one's free will, then that negates TRUE free will.

Since all decisions about life have consequences I see why you are firmly on the no free will side of things.

But nope, I can't see the logic of your contention. Why is there no free will if there is a consequence?