Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's see... Nope! I just looked it up. John 20: 29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” There is no "more blessed" anywhere in the verse
You do realize I kept writing after that sentence you responded, and it involved your attempted reformation of "equality of requiring evidence and blind faith." The story does not say "Blessed is Thomas for requiring Evidence!" (let alone "equally blessed also") does it? The story is a castigation to Thomas for requiring evidence, as has been confusedly interpreted as that by most Christians and the authors of confusion with the "Letters that Kill" the human spirit.
Quote:
Again, simply reading the narrative you're trying to analyze would do wonders for you. It's talking about a man who had to see and feel Jesus physically before believing that he had risen from the dead. It is not promoting "blind faith" as in "faith without good reason", that's just an assumption on your part.
"blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed," yet never mentioned that Thomas is blessed (let alone equally blessed) for the OPPOSITE. You are contorting yourself with mental gymnastics. Of course, Thomas was "Baptised/saved" and "a believer" but he wasn't "blessed" like John (disciple Jesus loved) supposedly was. All the 11 apostles (with Judas' voted replacement) were killed for religious and otherwise crimes, supposedly, only John was sentenced to a lifetime of banishment.
Quote:
Where are you finding that Jesus didn't look the same?
Because other stories detailed that the disples/apostles did not recognize Jesus 2.0 through his looks but thought he was someone else until they thought they noticed this stranger actually being Jesus through his words and actions (a common pagan trope about the gods). So why would Thomas (or anyone ever) need to stick his fingers in holes if he could clearly see Jesus' face and ask Jesus personal questions that only Jesus would know?
Quote:
Right, so we can make up a twin brother for Jesus, one that was willing to stab his hands and ribs so that people would believe he was his brother resurrected...
Sure twins exist and are possible, but they are also unlikely if the character and his family are supposed to be well known and are hounded by groupies. Even today, it is more likely to find look-alikes of even petty celebrities then for such petty celebrities to have twins. There are also magic tricks (and magic tricks were in big rage with cults and religions back then) to pretend holes, open doors by lighting fires, levitate/move statues or their parts, etc.
Quote:
As for that particular passage, sure it could just be a lie. I wasn't at any point trying to argue that it happened. I was just addressing your characterization of "Blessed are those who have not seen yet still believe".
That passage was taught to me by Christians, very dedicated and highly conservative ones who viewed it with my current interpretation. Given the structure of the story at the point, it is meant to contrast with Thomas' insinuated "nonblessing" for requiring physical evidence rather than just stories (I guess back then at that point in the culture they weren't thinking too much that personal feelings in your mind could be seen as evidence).
And regardless, you were proven wrong, merely because BLIND FAITH IS A BLESSING in Chrsitianity and thus EVIDENCED FAITH is it's own reward in full, not a blessing. The most you could liberally squeeze out of this then, is that evidence is the same as the lack there of in the Chrsitian dogmas. Yet most christians read it honestly and see that the story is saying,
"wanting and finding evidence is not blessed, but blind faith is"
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 01-10-2019 at 11:29 PM..
The story does not say "Blessed is Thomas for requiring Evidence!" (let alone "equally blessed also") does it?
But it doesn't say what you claimed, that people are more blessed if they haven't "seen". The burden of proof was on you, not me, and you failed.
Quote:
The story is a castigation to Thomas for requiring evidence
I'm not seeing that in the text anywhere, either. Usually when someone is wrong to do x the bible will say that. This story just has Thomas requiring more, and no criticism of that anywhere.
What you're calling "mental gymnastics" is just me reading the text for what it says, which is hilarious to me.
Quote:
Because other stories detailed that the disples/apostles did not recognize Jesus 2.0 through his looks but thought he was someone else until they thought they noticed this stranger actually being Jesus through his words and actions (a common pagan trope about the gods).
I did a little reading on this, and it seems to me that those stories in which they didn't recognize him can be attributed to the distance they were from him or the text specifically saying their eyes were made to not identify him. Not quite the same as him just looking different.
Quote:
So why would Thomas (or anyone ever) need to stick his fingers in holes if he could clearly see Jesus' face and ask Jesus personal questions that only Jesus would know?
I would guess different people require different degrees of confirmation? But what conclusion are you trying to draw from that?
Quote:
And regardless, you were proven wrong, merely because BLIND FAITH IS A BLESSING in Chrsitianity
Not what it says. It says that those who believe without seeing (again, referring to this physical sort of confirmation) are blessed. I think you are equivocating on the word "blind" here, thinking that "blind faith" = "belief without physically seeing", when it doesn't. "Blind faith" means believing without any good reason.
Quote:
and thus EVIDENCED FAITH is it's own reward in full, not a blessing.
Neither sort of faith is identified as the blessing. It just says that those who have faith without seeing (and probably referring to just that one way) are blessed.
And I don't care what most Christians think. If there's anything we should be able to agree on, it's that all too often an atheist can know their bible better than they do.
You have evidence that everything we can observe as signs of US (our consciousness) is produced by processes in the brain. But you have no evidence and cannot even measure whatever consciousness IS as it manifests as YOU in the unified field. You are willing to accept that YOU (your very Being) is some illusion of brain function. I confess I do not know how anyone can write their very Being off so cavalierly as an illusion.
Because it needs no unexplained external to be asserted.
But it doesn't say what you claimed, that people are more blessed if they haven't "seen". The burden of proof was on you, not me, and you failed.
[...]
Your response speaks for itself, you are merely trying to win "argument sport" points, and I simply don't care. When I originally quoted Jesus I clearly said "I think the saying goes" if not, then I apologize, if so, then maybe you should... especially giving that direct/perfect quotation was never the point bringing up that story and it's obvious supposedly "moral" teaching.
I will not continue to argue with your half-worked theological/mythological apologies and tortured interpretations. But I will not back down on my point that as Christianity is what ALL self-believing Christians make it, and as most highly rely on bibliolatry of 3rd-century compilations of chosen editions of certainly debatable manuscripts, Christianity highly upholds blind-faith, even to the point of reporting to BLESS it, while not reporting such blessings for evidenced/skeptical-faith.
You have evidence that everything we can observe as signs of US (our consciousness) is produced by processes in the brain. But you have no evidence and cannot even measure whatever consciousness IS as it manifests as YOU in the unified field. You are willing to accept that YOU (your very Being) is some illusion of brain function. I confess I do not know how anyone can write their very Being off so cavalierly as an illusion.
I was talking to a some science guys that program. i asked them about the machine language of the brain. they looked at me and said "we never even thought about it like that!". Thy were seriously intrigued.
your prediction is a conscious field. mine is the machine language used by brains. so why would you be against that notion? It would include the universe quantum computing "human thought" and the qualia thing of greys.
You have evidence that everything we can observe as signs of US (our consciousness) is produced by processes in the brain. But you have no evidence and cannot even measure whatever consciousness IS as it manifests as YOU in the unified field. You are willing to accept that YOU (your very Being) is some illusion of brain function. I confess I do not know how anyone can write their very Being off so cavalierly as an illusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Because it needs no unexplained external to be asserted.
The unexplained external that is implicit in the assertion of illusion is "Who is experiencing the illusion?"
Your response speaks for itself, you are merely trying to win "argument sport" points,
Characterize it however you like. So long as you/anyone else implies that the bible praises or promotes "blind faith" (as in believing without good reason), intentionally or unintentionally, people like me will correct that.
Quote:
I will not continue to argue with your half-worked theological/mythological apologies and tortured interpretations.
I don't do parting shots. If you're claiming something I've said is false, you can point that out.
Quote:
But I will not back down on my point that as Christianity is what ALL self-believing Christians make it, and as most highly rely on bibliolatry of 3rd-century compilations of chosen editions of certainly debatable manuscripts, Christianity highly upholds blind-faith, even to the point of reporting to BLESS it, while not reporting such blessings for evidenced/skeptical-faith.
To my knowledge so far, that's just something you're claiming. I've never heard a Christian say or suggest that god rewards blind faith especially.
Characterize it however you like. So long as you/anyone else implies that the bible praises or promotes "blind faith" (as in believing without good reason), intentionally or unintentionally, people like me will correct that.
I don't do parting shots. If you're claiming something I've said is false, you can point that out.
To my knowledge so far, that's just something you're claiming. I've never heard a Christian say or suggest that god rewards blind faith especially.
Why would anybody think that any wholly evil-influenced human book (although denied as such by those who flock to evil mixed with good and claim it as solely good and divine when they think it suits them) that is vastly followed (over a cliff) would claim there is no "reason" to believe what it claims for you to believe? Believing that "A = not A" (believing something for no good reason) is not what is meant by "blind faith." Blind faith is believing (hearsay, stories, and ideas, etc.) both without evidence and in a hopeful way.
Parting shots of what? You lied saying that any edition, version, or canon of a Christian Bible doesn't obviously promote "blessed are you for you have believed, but not seen" as "blessed are you for not requiring evidence (and thus not blessed are you for requiring it)"
Really, we are going to work through our own personal "knowledge so far," then? To memory, every Christian I've ever talked to before you about the issue have told me that requiring evidence is FLIRTING WITH DOUBT. Of course, there wouldn't be any Christian who would deny a believer who thinks they have evidence to support their belief since blind faith is the standard, any evidence (even if it is lies that happen to make you worship Jesus and thus save your soul through lies) can only be better for the "reason" of simply believing for believing's sake. What is that word "especially" supposed to mean at the end of that sentence of yours?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
