Re: An Easter question for Christians

[Enoch Root]

My wife is still a Christian and hasn't taken my de-conversion very well, so I do everything I can to be non-confrontational.  She asked me to come to church on Easter Sunday, and I agreed on the condition that afterward, I could ask her one question without her breaking into tears.  This is a big deal since she cries a lot, and then it's absolutely useless to try to carry on any meaningful discussion, so the end result is that we almost never talk about the subject at all.  

She agreed to my terms.

Clearly the Holy Spirit was moving or something because the preacher happened to mention the very passage I was going to ask her about, namely, "Doubting Thomas" (in John 20).  For those of you who don't know, Thomas was one of the 12 disciples who had supposedly witnessed all kinds of miracles and heard Jesus' teachings and heard Jesus predict his own resurrection.  Yet upon hearing news of the resurrection itself, he didn't believe.  He demanded proof; real, physical, tangible proof, not the "eyewitness account" that Christians bizarrely consider to be a bulletproof argument.  

So as a result of his lack of faith, Thomas was cast into an eternity of hell.  Ha!  Kidding.  Actually, Jesus indulged his healthy skepticism and gave him the proof he wanted.  Jesus then said that people who can believe without this proof would be blessed.

Alright, ignoring the disturbing "believe everything you hear without seeking evidence" vibe, my Easter question to Christians is this: Thomas, who supposedly had witnessed all kinds of miracles and known Jesus personally, had (supposedly) all kinds of reason to believe that Jesus could rise from the dead without needing proof.  And yet he demanded it, and it was granted.  But today, if a person who has never seen a miracle, nor ever met Jesus face-to-face, and lives 2000 years removed from all the eyewitness accounts, demands proof, they are not only denied but end up being condemned for an eternity of suffering.  Why?

[curiosityandthecat]

[joeactor]

Why?

Obviously it was a limited time offer from GodCo:

Not valid in Sodom or Gomorrah.  Philistines may be excluded.  Offer good only between the resurection and ascention. Some users may experience visions, spontaneous healing, or stigmata.  If you have a resurection lasting more than four hours, see you clergy.  All rights reserved.  A Quinn-Martin production.

[PipeBox]

Your BibleApproved answers may be:
Thomas believed wholeheartedly in Christ, he only doubted the resurrection.
Thomas believed in both Christ and the physical resurrection, only doubting the others had seen him.


Someone gave me a real good answer to that. I'm trying to find it, as was more impressive than those two.  It still sought to remove the "atheistic doubt" from Thomas, so that Jesus's appearance was still somehow a miracle of Thomas's faith.  Yeah.

[ACSlater]

Alright, ignoring the disturbing "believe everything you hear without seeking evidence" vibe, my Easter question to Christians is this: Thomas, who supposedly had witnessed all kinds of miracles and known Jesus personally, had (supposedly) all kinds of reason to believe that Jesus could rise from the dead without needing proof.  And yet he demanded it, and it was granted.  But today, if a person who has never seen a miracle, nor ever met Jesus face-to-face, and lives 2000 years removed from all the eyewitness accounts, demands proof, they are not only denied but end up being condemned for an eternity of suffering.  Why?

I have learned that believing blindly is the opposite of some teachings of Christianity. Doubt and uncertainty will cause one to ask sincere questions as you look to find the reasons you do believe. In Christianity, it comes down to one's heart and the intentions that are within. If someone is demanding proof or some empirical sign with intent to disprove, maybe those are the ones that are condemned. If you're looking to strengthen your own belief and understanding, I don't see why that would make someone different from Thomas. Again, blind belief isn't what was taught to me, but I was taught to truly understand the reasons I do.

Hopefully I kept this short enough.

[joeactor]

I have learned that believing blindly is the opposite of some teachings of Christianity. Doubt and uncertainty will cause one to ask sincere questions as you look to find the reasons you do believe. In Christianity, it comes down to one's heart and the intentions that are within. If someone is demanding proof or some empirical sign with intent to disprove, maybe those are the ones that are condemned. If you're looking to strengthen your own belief and understanding, I don't see why that would make someone different from Thomas. Again, blind belief isn't what was taught to me, but I was taught to truly understand the reasons I do..

Yes.  Thanks ACSlater.  Very subtle.

There is a third option - the one that science is based on.  Study the data and keep an open mind.  Be willing to revise or even replace the theory held based on the findings.

It doesn't have to be either/or.  Either I'm seeking to prove or disprove.  There are myriad problems with both.  They both have the potential to ignore data in favour of the theory.

Many religous people claim to be doubting or testing their faith, when in truth they are just seeking more data to support their position, while ignoring data that doesn't fit.  In some cases they will construct quite elaborate mechanisms to prove their position, and to disprove opposing positions...

Good topic,
JoeActor

[ACSlater]

I have learned that believing blindly is the opposite of some teachings of Christianity. Doubt and uncertainty will cause one to ask sincere questions as you look to find the reasons you do believe. In Christianity, it comes down to one's heart and the intentions that are within. If someone is demanding proof or some empirical sign with intent to disprove, maybe those are the ones that are condemned. If you're looking to strengthen your own belief and understanding, I don't see why that would make someone different from Thomas. Again, blind belief isn't what was taught to me, but I was taught to truly understand the reasons I do..

Many religous people claim to be doubting or testing their faith, when in truth they are just seeking more data to support their position, while ignoring data that doesn't fit.  In some cases they will construct quite elaborate mechanisms to prove their position, and to disprove opposing positions...

Good topic,
JoeActor

Ah, you're quite correct and very respectful in your diction when saying "many religious people" and not "all". Some people do wish to only support their position and ignore the rest...basically the Blue Bell Ice Cream of data gathering. I might be a weird one in the case of the quote I isolated from your post; I just don't really have to question the reason for my believing what I do. That may be due to the fact that I don't dismiss scientific discoveries and findings either.

For those keeping count, I guess that makes four cents I've thrown in now.  

[karadan]

Enoch, did your wife cry when you eventually asked her that question?

[Enoch Root]

No, she didn't.  

[karadan]

That's progress then. Well done!

[Sophus]

The explanation I heard for this from a pastor was that God grows tired of proving himself. So even in his omnipotence I guess his stamina isn't all that great.

[karadan]

The explanation I heard for this from a pastor was that God grows tired of proving himself. So even in his omnipotence I guess his stamina isn't all that great.

Wouldn't growing tired constitute a failing or flaw? I thought god was meant to be perfect...

[PipeBox]

And yet he can apparently be perturbed by what I do with my penis...  Out of all the universe, the many happenings on Earth or in the farthest reaches of the cosmos, God can be pissed off by the actions of a few microbes like us on a chunk of rock enough to nuke cities, turn people into salt, flood the world, and crush their short towers.  I guess he feels a bit different about the Sears Towers than he did about the tower of Babel.

Flaws?  His solution to man's sinful nature was to come to Earth and let people beat him up and then crucify him so he could forgive us.  Let that sink in...

[SSY]

And yet he can apparently be perturbed by what I do with my penis...  Out of all the universe, the many happenings on Earth or in the farthest reaches of the cosmos, God can be pissed off by the actions of a few microbes like us on a chunk of rock enough to nuke cities, turn people into salt, flood the world, and crush their short towers.  I guess he feels a bit different about the Sears Towers than he did about the tower of Babel.

Flaws?  His solution to man's sinful nature was to come to Earth and let people beat him up and then crucify him so he could forgive us.  Let that sink in...

So what you'are saying is, Jesus was not the son of god, and hence, Judaism must be right? Got it, thanks for clearing that one up.

[Godschild]

For those of you who are not believers and you had been around Jesus and seen the miracles He perfomed would you believe a dead man could raise himself from the dead?You have to remember Thomas asked the others to follow Jesus to Jerusalem and die with him.Sounds like a man that wasn't sure about what he believed even though he had been with Jesus for three years.Because on the night the Roman soldiers took Jesus away Thomas ran off with the others.Did he all of a sudden become unsure,no he all of a sudden was faced with a choice life or death and he did not want to gamble on his doubts.Ask yourselves would you have been willing to give up your life not knowing if this man calling himself the Son of God could raise himself from the dead if he couldn't then Thomas would have been in trouble and the life Jesus was talking about was eternal no one up to this point had been given this exept Enoch and Elijiah and they did not have to die to recieve it. So what would you have done I will tell you I would have acted no differant than Thomas.Also do not for get this all the others had already seen Jesus and then they believed Thomas had a more verbal action than the others.