What's Sinful About Wanting Proof?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

jgh7

What's Sinful About Wanting Proof?

Post #1

Post by 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?

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #2

Post by Divine Insight »

Never mind proof. Just give me some truly rational and sane reasons for believing this entire Biblical collection of fables and that would be a huge improvement. :D

I'm serious. These fables aren't only lacking proof, but as far as I can see they are lacking any rational credibility at all.

And to the Doubting Thomas fable I have the following to say:

Why in the world would this Thomas fellow not believe this was truly Jesus unless he saw the wounds? For crying out loud, Jesus was supposed to have been risen from the dead by God himself. Why in the world would any sane person expect Jesus to retain his physical wounds? :-k

I would expect precisely the opposite. After all, didn't Thomas already know Jesus? If so then shouldn't he have been far more convinced by a perfectly healed Jesus instead of a Jesus who retained the scars of the crucifixion?

As far as I'm concerned this is just an extremely terribly written story.

If there was a God who rose Jesus from the dead I would absolutely expect Jesus to be restored to pristine health.

If he still retained his wounds that would suggest to me that he simply survived the crucifixion and isn't much different from any mortal man who would have survived such an ordeal.

The mere fact that the "Doubting Thomas" story even exists in these tales pretty much gives them away as being totally made up fictional stories by superstitious individuals who aren't even thinking clearly.

So never mind proof. Just explain to me why a God would have done such a thing in the first place.

In fact, this is just one trivial problem.

Please explain to me why I should believe that some God had to have humans crucify his only begotten Son before he could offer them undeserved amnesty in the first place?

Never mind proof. Just explain to me why I should even give this religion any credibility at all? The entire religion appears to me to be nothing more than an extremely poorly written and highly immoral collection of utterly absurd fables.

It appears to be utter nonsense to me from Genesis to Revelation.

Should I be cast into hell for that? :-k

According to this religion I deserve to be cast into hell for not believing these utterly absurd tales. And that fact alone gives the religion even LESS credibility because it damns me for nothing more than being an honest sane person. This is basically PROOF that the religion cannot be true. It damns perfectly decent people for having done nothing more than not believing these outrageous utterly absurd stories.

What more proof should we need to clearly see that it's false?
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: What's Sinful About Wanting Proof?

Post #3

Post by JehovahsWitness »

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]


DID THOMAS HAVE GOOD REASON TO DOUBT?

We have to be careful about "freezing people in time", letting one moment in a person's life define them forever. Thomas was a faithful Apostle, hand picked by Jesus who, unlike Judas kept his faith. He showed great courage in sticking by Jesus during his final years and if the bible account is to be believed never left the course of Christian faith. That said, Jesus did reprimand him for not believing the eyewitness report. He was not alone, the other Apostles themselves had done the same thing as Thomas, rejecting the women's report of having seen the resurrected Christ as nonsense and refusing to follow their instructions blocking any opportunity to receive further proof*. That said neither Thomas nor the others had valid reason not to believe the reports about Jesus' resurrection

* Jesus had left the women to convey the message that they should go north to Galilee and he would appear to them there.
JOHN 20:29 - NWT
Jesus said to him: Because you have seen me, have you believed? Happy are those who have not seen and yet believe
Jesus did not say Thomas should have believed without any proof, he simply pointed out that physical/visual proof is not the only basis for believing something. 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.

Thomas (and the disciples) believed in an omnipotent God and where familiar with the countless miracles performed in the past INCLUDING the biblical reports of previous ressurections (three in the Hebrew scriptures). Unlike future generations, they had personally witnessed the at least one if not more of the three performed by Jesus himself. As the Miracle working Messiah hundreds (including Thomas himself) witnessed Jesus extraordinary works and his reputation as such covered the land and neighbouring countries proving he (Jesus) was to be associated with extraordinary supernatural events. Jesus had personally spend several months explaining the reason for his impending death and that he would remain dead only "three days". Although they did not fully understand why, that this was in line with scripture and a reasonable and logical development in God's purpose for the blessing of mankind.

Thomas had all this information when his long term companions witnessed to the resurrection of Jesus. He was already a man of faith (faith based on reason, testimony and eyewitness) and had no reason to dismiss the testimony before him as either a group hallucination or an elaborate conspiracy. Thomas knew their characters from at least 3 and a half years intimate association and had no reason to believe they had all ten had succumbed to simultaneous mental illness. He knew the Apostles had previously disregarded the reports from the women in their community as being emotional wishful thinking and hysteria and which was clear indication the men were not inclined to do the same. The about turn had to have been triggered by something remarkable and Thomas had absolutely no reason to conclude that remarkable event was not exactly what they swore it to have been.
  • In short his dogged dismissal of their eyewitness testimonies was personally inconsistent, illogical and not in keeping with the factual information he had already been party to. His hyperbolic demand to literally touch the open wound in a resurrected Jesus before he would believe was a reflection of the stubborn attitude of a man that refused to be reasoned with and the closed-minded dug in to a position of disbelief.
It was important that what happened with Thomas be recorded as Jesus was not going to constantly be presenting his wounded chest to each generation of believers. They would have to believe the written eyewitness accounts of Thomas and the other first century Christians. Future generations would not be "believing without evidence" they would be accepting the available eyewitness accounts as reliable evidence, exercising their powers of reason as Thomas should have done. Jesus indulged Thomas, because he was one of the group that was, through word alone, going to have to convince others of what they had seen.
The spirit would give them the ability themselves to perform many powerful miracles (Peter and Paul later performing the last two of the 9 biblical resurrections) and Christians for thousands of years to come would allow reason, acceptance of evidence and that same holy spirit make them men and women of faith; as Jesus himself said, such ones would be truly... HAPPY.
JW


RELATED POSTS

How to acsertain if a miracle really happened?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 09#p878409

Was Jesus resurrected in a spiritual or physical body?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 16#p753616

Further reading: The resurrection of Jesus: Did it really happen?
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... -of-jesus/
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Sat Jan 02, 2021 12:49 am, edited 10 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

jgh7

Re: What's Sinful About Wanting Proof?

Post #4

Post by jgh7 »

[Replying to post 3 by JehovahsWitness]

As you pointed out, I understand that under the circumstances which Thomas and the other apostles were in (the amount of time they were with Jesus and the many miracles they witnessed), it was a bit unreasonable for them to be so skeptical on claims of Jesus' resurrection.

You quoted John 20:29. I'm not sure which version you used. The one I'm most familiar with uses "blessed" instead of "happy":
Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.�
When I read this, it makes me think that Jesus is suggesting people are somehow better off believing without having the same solid evidence that the original apostles had. I interpret "seeing" as meaning given near undoubtable evidence as the apostles had (eye witness to miracles and/or experience of Jesus' presence). Building off of that, it seems more righteous to believe without seeing than to see and believe. Further, it seems like the preference to believe only upon seeing is wrong/sinful for some reason.

What are your thoughts on that?

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: What's Sinful About Wanting Proof?

Post #5

Post by JehovahsWitness »

jgh7 wrote:
You quoted John 20:29. I'm not sure which version you used. The one I'm most familiar with uses "blessed" instead of "happy":
Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.�
When I read this, it makes me think that Jesus is suggesting people are somehow better off believing without having the same solid evidence that the original apostles had. I interpret "seeing" as meaning given near undoubtable evidence as the apostles had (eye witness to miracles and/or experience of Jesus' presence).

What are your thoughts on that?
I quoted the New World Translation (NWT) duly added.

As I hope I have explained in my post above, both the eyewitness and those that base their faith on the available evidence and the accounts of eyewitnesses are to be considered "blessed" or "happy". Yes it was a wonderful privilege to be a personal eyewitness of first century events. Jesus was in my opinion, pointing out that there would be those that also would be happy or "blessed" for faith without direct personal phyiscal proof of those events.

Which group would be "happier"? Would one group be "more blessed"? Jesus didn't say that, but his reprimand of Thomas for me indicates the those that would believed later would show greater faith than those that had no reason not to believe because they had been directly presented with the physical evidence of that faith. Greater faith doesn't mean greater blessings, happiness or rewards, but faith is of its own reward and something highly favored by God.


Building off of that, it seems more righteous to believe without seeing than to see and believe.

I don't think it's a question of being "more righteous". Each is subject to the circumstances of his birth. Had you or I been born in first century Galilee, we would have had the opportunity perhaps to witness a miracle. That would not be our "fault" and God would have no reason to think less of the men and women that praised him for having seend such wonders than of 21st century believers that do so for having read and believed them. After all, some of the Pharisees and the religious leaders witnessed miracles and STILL did not believe so whether we have direct physical evidence or faith in God's word as recorded through the testimony of others, one's heart condition is the ultimate deciding factor and a man or woman's "righteousness" is a matter of heart condition not circumstance.


Further, it seems like the preference to believe only upon seeing is wrong/sinful for some reason

While yes, I would agree to say: "I will ONLY believe if I see" is wrong. It is wrong because it is illogical and unreasonable. As I pointed out in my original post, "seeing" is not the only criteria for belief and to narrow it down to that displays and unreasonable and narrow minded attitude.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11353
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: What's Sinful About Wanting Proof?

Post #6

Post by 1213 »

jgh7 wrote: ...
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?
I think the difference is in that Thomas wanted physical proof, while some other saw spiritual proof, they knew Jesus better by his words (spirit). When one knows Jesus well, he doesn’t have to see all. It is like, people who know you well, know you, even if they only hear your voice and ideas. While people who don’t know you, need more things to observe.

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8969
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 66 times
Contact:

Re: What's Sinful About Wanting Proof?

Post #7

Post by OnceConvinced »

jgh7 wrote: 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.
And notice how Jesus gave him the proof anyway. Supposedly Thomas went on and became a great man. Would it had happened if he hadn't received the proof? If Thomas went on and did great things because he received proof then it's safe to say that many of the rest of us would too. I know if I had proof, I'd be back to being a Christian again and doing everything I could to further the kingdom of God.

Also note a scripture which gives reasons for Jesus performing miracles:

John 20:30-31
Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

So Jesus did miracles so that people would believe in him. They were also recorded so that people would believe in him. That was his intention. So why is it evil to ask for proof now when Jesus was so willing to give it back then?

God jumped through hoops for people in biblical times to prove himself (just look at the story of Gideon.) However will not do it today for those who really need it. Maybe the fact is the bible stories are fictional and God never did those things? That is why we don't see similar things today. Perhaps even the likes of Thomas, Peter and Judas knew Jesus wasn't all he was cracked up to be, which would explain their lack of faith.
jgh7 wrote: He is referred to negatively throughout history as doubting Thomas.
And yet went on to become a great man of god apparently. Funny that.
jgh7 wrote:
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?
I think this is just an excuse for a non-existent god. Of course a god will never prove himself if he is non-existent, so you are forced to make up an excuse about God not being willing to be tested or "it's evil to ask for proof".

Asking for proof shouldn't even be an issue. Even if we did get proof there is no guarantee we will put faith in God. The real righteousness comes when you put your faith in God and trust him in your day to day lives. Satan and his angels got proof but did not trust God. But at least they got that proof and they were without excuse. Even the disciples had all the proof in the world. It wasn't evil to have proof, what was evil was to not have faith afterwards (like Judas and of course Peter and Thomas to a certain extent).

I just can't see how needing proof of God to be able to have faith in him would be an evil thing. What matters is what you do after you've got that proof. And no, looking at the world around us is not proof of God. That's a bible fantasy. For me when I look at the wonders around us, it screams out evolution, not God.

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: What's Sinful About Wanting Proof?

Post #8

Post by William »

jgh7 wrote: 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?
There is nothing wrong with doubting.

I think it become problematic when something is doubted willfully as a means of not facing some truth or another,

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8969
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 66 times
Contact:

Post #9

Post by OnceConvinced »

Divine Insight wrote:

And to the Doubting Thomas fable I have the following to say:

Why in the world would this Thomas fellow not believe this was truly Jesus unless he saw the wounds? For crying out loud, Jesus was supposed to have been risen from the dead by God himself. Why in the world would any sane person expect Jesus to retain his physical wounds? :-k

I would expect precisely the opposite. After all, didn't Thomas already know Jesus? If so then shouldn't he have been far more convinced by a perfectly healed Jesus instead of a Jesus who retained the scars of the crucifixion?

As far as I'm concerned this is just an extremely terribly written story.
Indeed. It is full of major plot holes. The main one being that Jesus had wounds afterwards.

Why should Thomas even need to see them? He should have taken one look at Jesus and been convinced. In fact, if the tales of Jesus were true, he should have been saying "It's about time he came back! What took him so long? Where is he? I want to see him." But no, all we get is major scepticism. Why would that be when he was rubbing shoulders with the son of God for so long?

The other possibility is that this was not Jesus before them. It was an imposter who had perhaps even wounded himself to try to convince people he was Jesus resurrected. Some of the disciples themselves might have even been behind the deception.

Of course Christians will point to what the disciples did afterwards as proof Jesus was resurrected. They allegedly went on to fervently preach the gospel and even got themselves martyred. Why would they do that if they didn't truly believe that Jesus had been resurrected?

I'm sure there are many reasons why people would want to start up their own religion with a famous figurehead behind it. There have been many since and just look at those cults and religions that have been started up by liars and charlatans. It could be that the disciples saw an opportunity to gain much fame, power and maybe even fortune in going about their missions. However all we have to do is look at Muslim terrorists who blow themselves up for their beliefs to see that just because someone gets themselves martyred, that's no proof of the validity of their religion.
Divine Insight wrote:
If there was a God who rose Jesus from the dead I would absolutely expect Jesus to be restored to pristine health.
Especially considering that we are all going to have new bodies after we die and are resurrected. Jesus was supposedly going through what we would go through when we are resurrected from the dead. So it just doesn't add up, does it? A resurrected Jesus with wounds. That's not now its supposed to work. What about his stomach? A spear was thrust through it. Was that still ripped open too? Were his internal organs still ruptured? Perhaps he looked a little like an extra from the Walking Dead TV show?
Divine Insight wrote:

The mere fact that the "Doubting Thomas" story even exists in these tales pretty much gives them away as being totally made up fictional stories by superstitious individuals who aren't even thinking clearly.
Indeed. I am a writer myself and you're always looking for ideas for drama. What better way to add a bit of drama to a story than having one of the disciples doubt Jesus and then ask for proof. And WOW there's the proof big time!

Of course in adding this plot twist, they actually created a contradiction when it comes to the resurrected body being a brand new body without any deformities, wounds, etc.
Divine Insight wrote:

Should I be cast into hell for that? :-k
Of course not. If God is real he would fully understand why you think the way you do. In fact he made you into that sceptical person who would require such reasoning. If God deliberately created you as a stubborn, wilful, rebellious person, then that's his fault, not yours. However God knows your mind and knows your "heart".

He knows that you are genuine and that you really do need rational arguments and reasons. I am the same. I'm sure, if God is real, he knows that all he needs to do is give me rational explanations for things and I'll believe again. He knows me better than I know myself.

In fact, if he were real, I'm sure he would have all his followers learning about all these rational reasons and explanations so that they can pass those on to us sceptics. Reasons and explanations that were so sound they could not be argued with. They wouldn't have to resort to feeble old apologetics.

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2288
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1959 times
Been thanked: 739 times

Re: What's Sinful About Wanting Proof?

Post #10

Post by benchwarmer »

jgh7 wrote: 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?
I think it's pretty simple and OC already touched on it. The promoters of this religion do not want you to question it too closely, just believe and you will reap the rewards. Asking too many pointed questions and not simply believing the poorly thought out stories is to be frowned upon.

When you know you have the truth and the observable data to back it up, what do you normally do? I normally say go ahead and look as closely as possible and ask as many questions as you can because it's all right there. No need to be shy when anyone can ascertain the truth for themselves.

When the story is a fabrication do you really want everyone questioning every detail?

Post Reply