Why is it better to believe without seeing?

[Nino]

First your toss in about conspiracy etc…when two folks,lets say parents decide ,without telling their children,that they will never have a fight in front of the kids,that is a conspiracy…so that word is not a bad word…like ‘square’ it was purposfully changed to eliminate proper questions of gov.policy…square was changed from being a honest and truthful person to being a person who is outdated and naive! Having said that when one opens ones mind and heart to the supernatural and that a loving God created we humans and only wants the best for us that is one gigantic step for Man …in being more then just a barnyard animal. As one who has been open to this most obvious belief my Creator has given me many blessings to go with lifes challenges…and I can ‘see’ so clearly now.His plan.I recently delivered a lecture on 'co-incidences or …?" and outlined a series of wonderful strange events that happened to me that have proven to me that there is a God and that He answers prayers in the best way intended for me…for us…if only we open up to receive those blessings…and my guardian angel looks better then that old coot in Its a wonderful life!!! Nino

 

[redhen]

it goes beyond the sight of the thing which we see to the faculties of the soul which are knowledge, understanding and the will to *accept what we see *or reject it.

Well, you are welcome to hold that opinion. I rather think that those terms are actually faculties of cognitive psychology.

A 14 year old pagan child enters a Catholic Church which is darkened …

That you for sharing that, seriously. I have felt similar emotions in Catholic churches as well as Buddhist temples. Emotions are fickle states though.

 

[redhen]

I go with the argument that if we saw God we would be forced to believe in Him and so wouldn’t come to Him solely because we wanted to, i.e. freely.

Well, if we discount the angels full knowledge of God without compromising their free will, there’s also this argument:
godisimaginary.com/i43.htm

namely, that the Lord God is **not in fact a hidden God. In both old and new testaments He appeared to many people, yet their free will was apparently not compromised. It’s only in the last 2,000 years that He has become hidden.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

Jesus said about doubting Thomas that those who believe without seeing are more blessed.

Why is that?

It’s not obvious to me why that’s a good thing. Is there something virtuous about a characteristic that in other situations would be called “gullible”? Conspiracy theorists seem to believe without seeing too. Why is this a good thing?

I wonder if this would also apply to people who have not heard the gospel, but are more open to accepting another religion when it is presented to them. Is that somehow virtuous in God’s eyes?

Socially, it’s because faith is way more powerful than truth.

If there was…let’s say, a Hindu gets into a debate with a Christian. And they get into a debate about who’s the Truth, the Light, the Way…

Krishna versus Jesus-- that’s a stalemate, right there.

It’s pretty impossible to lose a debate when you have such a belief in someone or something. Plus, it’s truly a comfort to believe in a spirit or deity that loves you very much; like a security blanket.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[Nick9]

Well, if we discount the angels full knowledge of God without compromising their free will, there’s also this argument:
godisimaginary.com/i43.htm

namely, that the Lord God is **not in fact a hidden God. In both old and new testaments He appeared to many people, yet their free will was apparently not compromised. It’s only in the last 2,000 years that He has become hidden.

There are still miracles today and have been throughout the 2,000 years. Such miracles, as I said in my previous post, are shown to those who already have faith and in this way their freedom is maintained because they have already freely chosen to believe in God. Miracles are not given to convince sceptics, who even if they saw one would probably be given enough room to discount it and remain in their chosen state.

 

[redhen]

There are still miracles today and have been throughout the 2,000 years.

But I’m not talking about miracles, I’m talking about God appearing, as in the transfiguration, the appearance to the five hundred, and of course the appearances in the OT.

The argument was that God does appear (nowadays it seems) because it would somehow take away our free will.

That argument fails when we take into account the previous appearances.

 

[Nick9]

But I’m not talking about miracles, I’m talking about God appearing, as in the transfiguration, the appearance to the five hundred, and of course the appearances in the OT.

The argument was that God does appear (nowadays it seems) because it would somehow take away our free will.

That argument fails when we take into account the previous appearances.

if a miracle proves God’s existence then it has the same affect as Him appearing. He appeared to Moses, who believed, and to believers in the Transfiguration, etc. It is always to believers. Others see a vague image, like a cloud or fire, which can be discounted by the sceptic. This is how I see it.

 

[redhen]

if a miracle proves God’s existence then it has the same affect as Him appearing. He appeared to Moses, who believed, and to believers in the Transfiguration, etc. It is always to believers. Others see a vague image, like a cloud or fire, which can be discounted by the sceptic. This is how I see it.

So the argument that if God appeared to us that would take away our free will is not cogent then?

 

[Nick9]

So the argument that if God appeared to us that would take away our free will is not cogent then?

why? A believer has already made a free choice to believe in God because he wants to based on what He knows about Him (helped by God’s grace), therefore God’s appearance does not remove the believer’s freedom. Someone who refuses to believe would be forced to do so if God appreared and so would have his freedom violated, i.e. being forced to submit to Him through fear.

There have been no more public revelations from God since the time of the last of the apostles, although private appearances to his faithful have occurred.

 

[redhen]

Thomas did not believe:

“The other disciples therefore said to him: We have seen the Lord. But he said to them: Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails and put my finger into the place of the nails and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

newadvent.org/bible/joh020.htm

“29 Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed”

So Thomas had his free will stripped away?

 

[Nick9]

Thomas did not believe:

“The other disciples therefore said to him: We have seen the Lord. But he said to them: Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails and put my finger into the place of the nails and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

newadvent.org/bible/joh020.htm

“29 Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed”

So Thomas had his free will stripped away?

Thomas had made a free choice in Jesus’ company to accept Him, so his freedom was intact when he saw Him. He already had faith, but it was a bit shaky after all that had happened with Jesus’ death. His faith would be made stronger at Pentecost, as was Peter’s.

 

[Tigg]

It’s only in the last 2,000 years that He has become* hidden*.

I disagree with this statement. Whatever did you read to suggest such a thing? His presence is always before us in the Blessed Sacrament and in our daily meditations and prayers. God is only hidden from unbelievers - those who have freely chosen to live a life without HIM. If you want nothing to do with God, He will honor that, you know!

Even as the world gets spiritually darker and sin increases (just look at the headlines) HIS power and grace become more prevalent to those who abide with HIM.

Awake, O sleeper, arise from the dead, and Christ will give you light.
Ephesians 5:14

 

[redhen]

Thomas had made a free choice in Jesus’ company to accept Him, so his freedom was intact when he saw Him. He already had faith, but it was a bit shaky after all that had happened with Jesus’ death. His faith would be made stronger at Pentecost, as was Peter’s.

A bit shaky? “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails and put my finger into the place of the nails and put my hand into his side,** I will not believe**.”

A bit shaky? Sounds like Richard Dawkins to me.

 

[Nick9]

A bit shaky? “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails and put my finger into the place of the nails and put my hand into his side,** I will not believe**.”

A bit shaky? Sounds like Richard Dawkins to me.

he was an apostle who was faithful to Jesus throughout His ministry, so he had faith in Him. Thomas was saying he didn’t believe the fact that Jesus had risen from the dead, not that God did not exist in Him. It was Jesus’ death which shook the faith of the apostles, who regained their strength at Pentecost. Nothing like Richard Dawkins.

 

[Nick9]

Richard Dawkins would have said: I see you look exactly like Jesus, but it is more probable that you are someone else with his exact characteristics than that there is a God who has raised you from the dead. Why add unnecessary complexity to the situation? he would conclude. He definitely wouldn’t conclude with: my Lord and my God, like Thomas did after recognising that it was his friend after all: Jesus, God made man.

 

[redhen]

Thomas was saying he didn’t believe the fact that Jesus had risen from the dead, not that God did not exist in Him.

This is the **core **of Christianity though;

"But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen again. 14 And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain: and your faith is also vain. "

I Corinthians 15:14

 

[Nick9]

This is the **core **of Christianity though;

"But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen again. 14 And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain: and your faith is also vain. "

I Corinthians 15:14

I mean he didn’t believe that the apostles had seen Him rise from the dead, not that he didn’t have the belief of faith which would later be given to them through the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Thomas doubted in his fleshly weakness after the traumatic event of losing his master but would later be strengthened to believe without having to see.

 

[redhen]

I mean he didn’t believe that the apostles had seen Him rise from the dead

What are you implying? That if perhaps other people had seen Him, maybe His mother, then he would have believed?

According to the texts, none of the apostles believed he would be resurrected; in fact they ran away.

“Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed”

Thomas doubted in his fleshly weakness after the traumatic event of losing his master but would later be strengthened to believe without having to see.

C’mon now, how is that possible since he had already seen Him in the flesh?

 

[Nick9]

What are you implying? That if perhaps other people had seen Him, maybe His mother, then he would have believed?

no I am not implying that. I mean that Thomas refused to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead and had been seen in that state by anyone.

“Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed”

Thomas already believed in Jesus and who He was so this added evidence simply increased his belief, it didn’t force it. Notice how he readily accepts what he sees and then worships Jesus. Hardly what a sceptic would do.

C’mon now, how is that possible since he had already seen Him in the flesh?

seeing in the flesh is different from believing with faith by the Spirit.

 

[redhen]

Thomas already believed in Jesus and who He was so this added evidence simply increased his belief, it didn’t force it. Notice how he readily accepts what he sees and then worships Jesus. Hardly what a sceptic would do.

If I saw someone who I knew intimately who had died and was buried, and could see and feel the wounds from which they died, I think I would have to conclude that they had somehow risen from the dead. Free will has nothing to do with it.