Is gullibility a virtue in Christianity?

[Anthem]

"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?

Dictionary defines them as synonyms - merriam webster

 

[nPeace]

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.

No please. You are mistaken.
In other words, Jesus, knowing that his time on earth was very short, spoke confidently about people who would be living long after him, and yet putting faith in him - obviously based on the reports about him, that he knew would spread. ...and he was exactly right... as usual.

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.

When people hear a news report, such as this...
[GALLERY=media, 8663]News Report by nPeace posted Sep 24, 2018 at 1:47 PM[/GALLERY]
They are not gullible, just because they accept the news report, although the did not see the actual person, or the events reported.
In fact, there is no way they will be able to get that information to investigate for themselves.
They trust that the report is genuine.

Christians are doing the same.
They did not see Jesus in person, not witnessed the actual events, but they trust the reports, which on the contrary have been supported.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

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.

To me you are only gullible if you fall for a lie. Those that believe the truth will be blessed. Those that have listened to the voice of the enemy, will be the ones shown to be gullible in the end.

As far as the plane crash, I would believe you, unless I knew you to be a liar. I know Satan is a liar.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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

For some reason I didn't get this. No one gave us the power of life. We are life. We are energy. We are creators. We are also creations. If anything, those two words doesnt make sense since things just don't pop from nowhere. We are constantly forming into life, growing, aging, and dying into new form. A literal circle of life.

Why should there be a god? That energy has been Us since we're conceived. It is, by definition, pure energy as the motor of movement into creation.

Why does there need to be an outside party to form life from life?

 

[David T]

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.

Well thats how southern baptists interpret it ru proposing that southern baptists are bible experts? Wierd i know for a fact they are a pretty clueless bunch why support their interpretation

 

[Riders]

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.

Personally i agree to some extent with this scripture. I think religious belief comes from faith not physical proof that religion was real. Its why I don't care about any proof which Christians to claim to have.

Considering this scripture is here I ask the question why do Christians try to prove their religion is the right
one by trying to make claims that writings about Christ and proof Jesus existed which did not exist.

 

[Audie]

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.

You sure have to just awfully gullible to believe in Noah's Ark.

 

[loverofhumanity]

You sure have to just awfully gullible to believe in Noah's Ark.

The Bible is basically a spiritual Book with many lessons, parables and so on to teach concepts and ideals to people. It is not all a literal Book.

The story about Noah's Ark is indicative of what happens when we enter and fail to enter into God’s ways. Those who followed God’s ways remained safe while those who didn’t got swept away, as in these days, by the storms of materialism and corruption.

Things like drug addiction, domestic violence, hatred, bigotry, selfishness, murder, prejudice, terrorism represent those who have not entered the ‘Ark’ and so are doing as they please.

This is a figurative story, like Adam and Eve of how man becomes abased by turning away from the laws and teachings of God.

There are many deeper spiritual truths hidden in the stories in the Bible which one will not discover reading it literally.

 

[syo]

For some reason I didn't get this. No one gave us the power of life. We are life. We are energy. We are creators. We are also creations. If anything, those two words doesnt make sense since things just don't pop from nowhere. We are constantly forming into life, growing, aging, and dying into new form. A literal circle of life.

Why should there be a god? That energy has been Us since we're conceived. It is, by definition, pure energy as the motor of movement into creation.

Why does there need to be an outside party to form life from life?

God is the First. Don't everything have a beginning? There is a start. In my opinion

 

[Jumi]

Well thats how southern baptists interpret it ru proposing that southern baptists are bible experts? Wierd i know for a fact they are a pretty clueless bunch why support their interpretation

It seems like a lot of atheists and at least one agnostic take all their clues from southern baptists. Their universe isn't big enough to fit the existing theists in there.

 

[Audie]

The Bible is basically a spiritual Book with many lessons, parables and so on to teach concepts and ideals to people. It is not all a literal Book.

The story about Noah's Ark is indicative of what happens when we enter and fail to enter into God’s ways. Those who followed God’s ways remained safe while those who didn’t got swept away, as in these days, by the storms of materialism and corruption.

Things like drug addiction, domestic violence, hatred, bigotry, selfishness, murder, prejudice, terrorism represent those who have not entered the ‘Ark’ and so are doing as they please.

This is a figurative story, like Adam and Eve of how man becomes abased by turning away from the laws and teachings of God.

There are many deeper spiritual truths hidden in the stories in the Bible which one will not discover reading it literally.

I know all that, as an explanation.

For clarity, you too find it gullible to think
it really happened?

 

[Audie]

It seems like a lot of atheists and at least one agnostic take all their clues from southern baptists. Their universe isn't big enough to fit the existing theists in there.

Is that what you think?

 

[Altfish]

I doubt they view it as gullibility.

Don't they call it 'Faith'?

 

[Jumi]

Is that what you think?

It's easy to observe some people do this, yes. Once I put that "monotheist" in my religion, some of them have been confusing my beliefs for southern baptist-like beliefs with astounding frequency. Many of them don't care though, they're just happy to treat you just like one and unhappy if they can't. Of course they forget about all of it the next discussion.

 

[Audie]

God is the First. Don't everything have a beginning? There is a start. In my opinion

So the start was god making itself?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

God is the First. Don't everything have a beginning? There is a start. In my opinion

No. Life is a cycle. No beginning to circle.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's easy to observe some people do this, yes. Once I put that "monotheist" in my religion, some of them have been confusing my beliefs for southern baptist-like beliefs with astounding frequency. Many of them don't care though, they're just happy to treat you just like one and unhappy if they can't. Of course they forget about all of it the next discussion.

Why southern Baptist?

I notice there is a lot of comparision and contrast from the Catholic interpretation of christianity. But, no, we are not all closed to the theist world. How did you arrive at that conclusion; and, how is that logical to you?

 

[loverofhumanity]

I know all that, as an explanation.

For clarity, you too find it gullible to think
it really happened?

I know all that, as an explanation.

For clarity, you too find it gullible to think
it really happened?

The Ark and the Flood we Bahais believe are symbolical.

 

[Jumi]

Why southern Baptist?

Or any type of literal book religionist.

I notice there is a lot of comparision and contrast from the Catholic interpretation of christianity.

Yes. Not that I'm close to either.

But, no, we are not all closed to the theist world. How did you arrive at that conclusion; and, how is that logical to you?

Never said all of you, but some atheists do this. When I was atheist, I didn't pay attention to it.

 

[Audie]

The Ark and the Flood we Bahais believe are symbolical.

Yes, you said that already. The TOPIC is
"'gullible".

A lot of people think it is accurate and historical.

Is that being gullible, or would you rather not say?