• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is gullibility a virtue in Christianity?

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
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.

You must have quoted the book of context, because that's how you took the word of Christ, out of context.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
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.

Of course, the real issue is TRUST. YOU WOULDN'T TRUST ANYONE OR ANYTHING YOU DIDN'T SEE PERSONALLY, RIGHT?
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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.
I learned that as a child it is suprising. My father was a harsh atheist and i was raised totally secular. His "proof" that god didnt exist was based on noahs ark size not being large enough emperically to hold all life on the planet.

I had no idea what he was talking avout since i had no contact with religion. It was lile he was carrying on a conversation with someo. E else that i couldnt understand..

At avout 21 i had an experience. It had ZERO to do with accepting jesus beliecing in god or anything but it was an experience none the less where fod went from an avstractive idea to direct experience..... Now how that can be interpreted can be completely mad and often times is mad including "its neurology" as if thats a reasoned statement that answers anything its not. none the less the experience is real and its effected me to this day. I understand it now but that would take many many years to get there.
 

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
If the world was composed of people with only love and compassion, we would all starve to death. If you want to see just how gullible people are, just tell them only what they want to hear.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
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.

I think that the truth that Jesus represents is an objective one. It is not so much that he died and was resurrected but that people understand that the fear of death can be defeated. So those who believe that Jesus achieved this defeat of death, they are blessed because they will have the courage to live with that much less fear of death.

Death is a source of anxiety for anyone who is a witness to the reality of their life and the lives of those they love. We may not risk death on a daily basis, or we may not be aware of our risk for that death (just driving on a freeway is a risk), but it is ever-present.

Gullibility is, of course, your interpretation of this behavior. But a need for moral fortitude in a world that is at best ambivalent about a person's dignity and safety, is nothing to scoff at. To be able to act with dignity, character and moral fortitude against the continual threat of death or meaninglessness is a trait I think we all want to cultivate.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
A circle has 360 degrees. A circle has diameter, it has radius, you can analyze a circle.

There is no starting point. I never said analyze. We can analyze anything but some things we can't change the nature of regardless how many interpretations and unnecessary numbers we derive of the study.
 

syo

Well-Known Member
There is no starting point. I never said analyze. We can analyze anything but some things we can't change the nature of regardless how many interpretations and unnecessary numbers we derive of the study.
all shapes including the circle have a starting point.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
all shapes including the circle have a starting point.

Where is the starting Point of a circle?

A raw, unaltered, unmarked, round circle.

The only shapes I can think of with starting points are lines. Linear shapes. But then you can start at one end or another without there being a static beginning or end; matter of perception.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
it has points. whichever point you take, there will be before the point and after the point.

Where are the points?

Starting points are independent of where you place your pencil. Lines have starting points because it doesn't overlap. It goes from one end to another.

Circles don't work that way. It's not depended on where you place your point (origin isn't defined by people), it's appearant in and of itself. Life isnt linear.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
you think points in circles overlap?
Youre making it complicated on purpose.

One long round line has no starting point. Its not made up of points (unless you draw it that way). Its ongoing.

You can imagine a starting point anywhere. It's not defined so you can make it up by putting your pencil anywhere.

The nature of a circle has no beginning.

What in the world are you talking about?
 
Top