Is gullibility a virtue in Christianity?

[Rational Agnostic]

In John 20:29, Jesus supposedly states "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

In other words, this is a verse praising gullibility as a virtue. It is, according to Christianity, apparently virtuous to believe extraordinary claims that are unsupported. Why is this the case? I find it very strange, especially considering the fact that many Christians are just as skeptical as anyone else about everything, except the claims of their religion.

For instance, if I told you that there was, say, a plane crash in your neighborhood, most of you probably wouldn't believe me, at least not without first checking the evidence and *seeing* for yourself. Yet, when a less believable claim is made about a guy who, 2000 years ago, supposedly died and became alive again three days later, with the only evidence to support this claim being the contradictory reports of documents written by anonymous authors decades or more after the alleged events took place, these same Christians who are skeptical about everything else will believe that these events took place. Do you see the inconsistency? Why do so many Christians believe that gullibility is a virtue when it comes to believing the claims of their religion, yet remain skeptical about much more believable claims? Also, why should gullibility be a virtue at all? Gullibility, or "faith" in the absence of evidence is useless, and helps no one. If anything, it should be considered a "vice" and not a virtue.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In John 20:29, Jesus supposedly states "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

In other words, this is a verse praising gullibility as a virtue. It is, according to Christianity, apparently virtuous to believe extraordinary claims that are unsupported. Why is this the case? I find it very strange, especially considering the fact that many Christians are just as skeptical as anyone else about everything, except the claims of their religion.

For instance, if I told you that there was, say, a plane crash in your neighborhood, most of you probably wouldn't believe me, at least not without first checking the evidence and *seeing* for yourself. Yet, when a less believable claim is made about a guy who, 2000 years ago, supposedly died and became alive again three days later, with the only evidence to support this claim being the contradictory reports of documents written by anonymous authors decades or more after the alleged events took place, these same Christians who are skeptical about everything else will believe that these events took place. Do you see the inconsistency? Why do so many Christians believe that gullibility is a virtue when it comes to believing the claims of their religion, yet remain skeptical about much more believable claims? Also, why should gullibility be a virtue at all? Gullibility, or "faith" in the absence of evidence is useless, and helps no one. If anything, it should be considered a "vice" and not a virtue.

The closer a person is to a given concept, belief, or relationship, etc, the less likely they are to question their views unless it supports their views such as community or peers in like worship or documents supporting beliefs while ignoring others that contradict them.

If a family member was accused of hurting their child told by a stranger, it would take a lot more for that persons family member to believe the claim than watching the news and deciding people are guilty based on what others perceive as evidence before their own investigation.

Its faith, rather than guiliability, because they put conviction and trust that things they cant see (nor do not have the ability) to prove is actually true. So, they cant look into evidence for their beliefs when they are told or told themselves it is impossible to find proofs and evidence for themelves and outside themselves.

Its just how christianity is put together. Im not sure of muslim and jews, though. Also, this is just going off christians and christian denomination. Reading the bible, I honestly cant find learning lessons without a foudation of death, suffering, sacrifice, and idolism.

Edited.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I don’t think it’s gullibility but more that those who did not receive the vision the disciples had, reached a state in which they were pure in heart enough to have the spiritual insight to recognize Who Jesus was and that He was sent by God.

Jesus was simply emphasizing the high station of those who were pure in heart enough to have the spiritual insight to see Who He was.

A person who has a pure heart can know & recognize God immediately and is in no need of physical proofs.

He said the ‘pure in heart shall see God’. At that time souls who were of pure heart were very rare, even the Jewish high priests could not see He was from God because they were too attached to earthly power.

It’s the same today I feel. Those who are pure in heart can readily see the truth of God’s Messengers while those who’s spiritual abilities are weak see nothing and think it’s all a myth or as you put it, gullibility.

Take for instance a bird. With wings it can fly to the heavens but if it gets stuck in earthly mud or it’s wings are impaired, it may never fly and even claim the heavens don’t exist because it cannot fly. But the other ones who can fly know that’s not true but that poor bird, while it’s mired in the mud will insist there is no heavens.

When the spirit awakens it can see the truth of all the Prophets but if it is in slumber it will see nothing and claim it’s all nonsense.

 

[Cacotopia]

I doubt they view it as gullibility.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In John 20:29, Jesus supposedly states "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

In other words, this is a verse praising gullibility as a virtue. It is, according to Christianity, apparently virtuous to believe extraordinary claims that are unsupported. Why is this the case? I find it very strange, especially considering the fact that many Christians are just as skeptical as anyone else about everything, except the claims of their religion.

For instance, if I told you that there was, say, a plane crash in your neighborhood, most of you probably wouldn't believe me, at least not without first checking the evidence and *seeing* for yourself. Yet, when a less believable claim is made about a guy who, 2000 years ago, supposedly died and became alive again three days later, with the only evidence to support this claim being the contradictory reports of documents written by anonymous authors decades or more after the alleged events took place, these same Christians who are skeptical about everything else will believe that these events took place. Do you see the inconsistency? Why do so many Christians believe that gullibility is a virtue when it comes to believing the claims of their religion, yet remain skeptical about much more believable claims? Also, why should gullibility be a virtue at all? Gullibility, or "faith" in the absence of evidence is useless, and helps no one. If anything, it should be considered a "vice" and not a virtue.

Christianity does not want people who critically think and determine for themselves so it is designed to seek out people who have demonstrated that they possess a low standard of believability.

What better way to go about catering to that gullibility by employing simple manipulation in the form of "deep" platitudes and parables.

 

[loverofhumanity]

It’s an enormous asset to be able to distinguish truth from falsehood and requires an unbiased and open mind and heart.

Only little reflection is needed to see the power of God behind these Great Beings Who were opposed, tortured, imprisoned, crucified and Their followers beheaded yet Their Cause conquered the minds and hearts of billions all over the world thousands of years after Their death,

The true resurrection is that They live on in the hearts and lives of men even today and Their teaching of love, goodwill and charity to all are eternal.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I doubt they view it as gullibility.

They don't. I didn't regard myself as gullible when I was in Christianity until I realized it later that it was the case shortly before I left the religion.

 

[Anthem]

Christianity does not want people who critically think and determine for themselves so it is designed to seek out people who have demonstrated that they possess a low standard of believability.

What better way to go about catering to that gullibility by employing simple manipulation in the form of "deep" platitudes and parables.

Hmph. Ignorant swine.

 

[Anthem]

Nowhere does it say gullibility.

And if you insist, a synonym for gullibility is trusting.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Christianity does not want people who critically think and determine for themselves so it is designed to seek out people who have demonstrated that they possess a low standard of believability.

What better way to go about catering to that gullibility by employing simple manipulation in the form of "deep" platitudes and parables.

What harm would there be if Christ’s teaching to love thy neighbor were to be practiced universally? Would it cause peace or war? Reconciliation or confrontation? Such teachings are the life of our world and it’s precisely because people have turned away from love that humanity is enmeshed in so many sorrows and griefs.

Love is the law that Jesus brought and that was His message to love one another.

 

[syo]

In John 20:29, Jesus supposedly states "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

logic makes christians believe. christ is in tune with logic.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Without gullibility there'd be no Christianity.

Also, it's very doubtful that this remark was made by Jesus. We have two authentic sources for his sayings: Mark's gospel, based in the memory of Peter, and the extra sayings held in common by pseudo-Matthew and pseudo-Luke, presumably based on the collection of Jesus's sayings that Papias said was published by the real Matthew.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What harm would there be if Christ’s teaching to love thy neighbor were to be practiced universally? Would it cause peace or war? Reconciliation or confrontation? Such teachings are the life of our world and it’s precisely because people have turned away from love that humanity is enmeshed in so many sorrows and griefs.

Love is the law that Jesus brought and that was His message to love one another.

Oh I have nothing against the virtues of love and compassion.

Just that people whom are suspectable have a tendency to be lulled into an unrealistic and fantastical way of thinking.

Sometimes sorrows and grief are the direct results of such things.

 

[Regiomontanus]

In John 20:29, Jesus supposedly states "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

In other words, this is a verse praising gullibility as a virtue. It is, according to Christianity, apparently virtuous to believe extraordinary claims that are unsupported. Why is this the case? I find it very strange, especially considering the fact that many Christians are just as skeptical as anyone else about everything, except the claims of their religion.

For instance, if I told you that there was, say, a plane crash in your neighborhood, most of you probably wouldn't believe me, at least not without first checking the evidence and *seeing* for yourself. Yet, when a less believable claim is made about a guy who, 2000 years ago, supposedly died and became alive again three days later, with the only evidence to support this claim being the contradictory reports of documents written by anonymous authors decades or more after the alleged events took place, these same Christians who are skeptical about everything else will believe that these events took place. Do you see the inconsistency? Why do so many Christians believe that gullibility is a virtue when it comes to believing the claims of their religion, yet remain skeptical about much more believable claims? Also, why should gullibility be a virtue at all? Gullibility, or "faith" in the absence of evidence is useless, and helps no one. If anything, it should be considered a "vice" and not a virtue.

Hello.

"Yet, when a less believable claim is made about a guy who, 2000 years ago, supposedly died and became alive again three days later, with the only evidence to support this claim being the contradictory reports of documents written by anonymous authors decades or more after the alleged events took place, these same Christians who are skeptical about everything else will believe that these events took place"

Most of the devout Christians I know would reject that characterization. The basis of their faith is their personal experience of the risen Christ. Jesus is not just some dude that died along time ago, was resurrected, then disappeared.

 

[sojourner]

Christianity does not want people who critically think and determine for themselves so it is designed to seek out people who have demonstrated that they possess a low standard of believability.

What better way to go about catering to that gullibility by employing simple manipulation in the form of "deep" platitudes and parables.

I disagree. Perhaps some groups value gullibility. Many do not. Many value reason.

They don't. I didn't regard myself as gullible when I was in Christianity until I realized it later that it was the case shortly before I left the religion.

Just because you fell out of the tree doesn’t mean that the tree is flawed.

Without gullibility there'd be no Christianity.

Also, it's very doubtful that this remark was made by Jesus. We have two authentic sources for his sayings: Mark's gospel, based in the memory of Peter, and the extra sayings held in common by pseudo-Matthew and pseudo-Luke, presumably based on the collection of Jesus's sayings that Papias said was published by the real Matthew.

We also have Thomas.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

logic makes christians believe. christ is in tune with logic.

How so?

Faith and logic dont go hand in hand. Not all spiritual teachings are logic (jesus saving people over thousand year gap I.e.) but with faith it's still worth believing. People are gullible or easily open to believe I'm god because they have no other option they trust. They set low standards because one needs faith to jump over ones logic and live by faith.

Some are more ready to do so (gullible) than others.

 

[syo]

How so?

Faith and logic dont go hand in hand. Not all spiritual teachings are logic (jesus saving people over thousand year gap I.e.) but with faith it's still worth believing. People are gullible or easily open to believe I'm god because they have no other option they trust. They set low standards because one needs faith to jump over ones logic and live by faith.

Some are more ready to do so (gullible) than others.

people are full of life. How? what gave them life? where did all this energy come from? shouldn't there be a god?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Hello.

"Yet, when a less believable claim is made about a guy who, 2000 years ago, supposedly died and became alive again three days later, with the only evidence to support this claim being the contradictory reports of documents written by anonymous authors decades or more after the alleged events took place, these same Christians who are skeptical about everything else will believe that these events took place"

Most of the devout Christians I know would reject that characterization. The basis of their faith is their personal experience of the risen Christ. Jesus is not just some dude that died along time ago, was resurrected, then disappeared.

What is "personal experience?" Knowledge is demonstrable. If they know that Jesus is interacting in their life, they should be able to demonstrate it with strong empirical evidence.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Nowhere does it say gullibility.

And if you insist, a synonym for gullibility is trusting.

"Trust" and "gullibility" are not synonyms. The definition of "trust" is "firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something." The definition of gullible is "easily persuaded to believe something; credulous."

There is nothing in the definition of "trust" that states how easily one comes to believe in the reliability, truth, or strength of someone. So, it's possible to trust without being gullible.

In any case, trust may be useful for person-to-person relationships. But why should I trust an invisible guy who can't even be proven to exist?

 

[Paula Eilene]

What harm would there be if Christ’s teaching to love thy neighbor were to be practiced universally? Would it cause peace or war? Reconciliation or confrontation? Such teachings are the life of our world and it’s precisely because people have turned away from love that humanity is enmeshed in so many sorrows and griefs.

Love is the law that Jesus brought and that was His message to love one another.

Love your Neighbor is from the Book of Leviticus.