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?

[imhereforyou]

[Replying to post 49 by Willum]

This all falls apart when you realize dogs are much smarter than we are.

HAHA very true!

I am startled you didn't see this flaw in your analogy.

You can substitute human for dog and peeing or drinking or dancing or smoking or lusting or loving of gambling or any myriad of 'things' if you want - it still holds true.

we don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden, isn't it possible, not being instructed or knowing what death was, or sin was, that after countless centuries of Paradise, they simply half-forgot the warning, and there was the Serpent saying an encouraging word or two.

We don't know a lot of things from the bible - that hasn't stopped people from making assumptions into rules and laws, right and wrongs - when it comes to God. For crying out loud, the current accepted bible doesn't have much or any about a young Jesus but we are to assume everything was all candy and roses with him but was it? Not likely. Jesus had to poop assumingly so we can assume not everything was candy and roses with him growing up.

Point is, God threatens humanity with condemnation for not doing what he says. That directly impacts free will of these people to varying degrees both good and bad.

People kill in God's name just as people claim to love in God's name. Perhaps they could find another scapegoat for this killing and loving but that doesn't change the fact that ultimate outcomes, from actions, depends on outside consequences (or potential consequences) to varying degrees.

[imhereforyou]

[Replying to post 48 by imhereforyou]

What do you make of those who would disobey such a Good on principle, even if it meant going to Hell?

That's between God and them, ultimately. What I think of them SHOULD have no bearing on them personally. I don't they care what I think of them.

Besides, that's likely a topic best left for another thread I would think

[The Nice Centurion]

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?

What is that?

You want solid proof for, among other things, flat earth, worldwide flood, geocentrism, young earth, miracles as a common fact, resurrections of deceased, walking dead in Jerusalem, a Sun that sometime resisted from orbiting flat earth without catastrophic consequences, no macroevolution, virgin birth . . . ?

No, please! Be a good righteous person and have faith without proof!
Thank you.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to post 48 by imhereforyou]

What do you make of those who would disobey such a Good on principle, even if it meant going to Hell?

That's between God and them, ultimately. What I think of them SHOULD have no bearing on them personally. I don't they care what I think of them.

Besides, that's likely a topic best left for another thread I would think

LDS death baptized all 6000000 gassed Jews. Todays jewish leaders felt ridiculed and urged the LDS church to undo the death baptizing that made 60ü0000 mormons out of them.

LDS answered they do not know how to unpaptize, but the good message is they spoke to the mormon god and he finds the grace to give the 6000000 a choice.
At the end of days he will ask them if they wish to enter heaven as mormons or be thrown into hellfire as "fallen mormons". Thats nice from LDS isnt it?

Poor 6000000! First gassed by germany, then death baptized by LDS, now dead LDS members, only to get thrown in hell or forfeit their heritage when Jesus has his Second Coming.