Is faith the answer to cognitive dissonance?

That's exactly what it means in these passages... well "not seeing" means "having no evidence".

quote:

---

24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

---

It can't be that. The other diciples had seen Jesus after he was resurrected and Thomas had not. This wasn't about believing if Jesus had exasted or not, it was about him walking around after being crucified. Thomas couldn't believe it unless he saw the nail marks and put his finger in them.Jesus isn't talking about just seeing with your eyes, he's talking about having concrete evidence. Thomas required evidence to believe and Jesus said the blessed are those who believe without evidence.

For me, not at all.If anything, my faith causes cognitive dissonance.

Which, given that the action in question is widely considered to be impossible, is rather a convenient line to take is it not?

You do realize testimonial evidence IS evidence ?Thomas had testimonial evidence, but required visual evidence of his own. And Jesus provided it to him.And so ''not seeing'' means ''having no visual evidence''. Doesn't mean having no evidence whatsoever.

I qualified the evidence with "concrete"... which is what Jesus was talking about. Not just hearing about it, but actually seeing and touching it in order to believe it. The person who requires that kind of evidence to believe does not fall into the blessed crowd, according to Jesus.

So?

Doesn't it worry you that Christian faith is so unashamedly self reverential? Doesn't it smack of BS?

Nope. No, my own personal faith does not smack of BS to myself ABE:I should probably mention that I don't consider my faith to be blind either. I'm just saying what the Bible says that Jesus said.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

You do realize that in court laws, I doubt they would qualify only visual evidence of the murder by the jury as 'concrete'.What Jesus was sayign was simply that they believed because they saw, but those that believed with less evidence to work with such as us 2000 years after the events were blessed.And it's never been about the person who requires that kind of evidence vs the person who doesn't require it. It is about those who have that kind of evidence vs those that don,t havethat kind of evidence. Those that don't have personnal visual confirmation of Jesus's ressurection, yet still believe, are blessed in my opinion. They are blessed in the same way we are blessed to be born in north america and not africa. (people today would say 'lucky', and I wouldn't be surprised that the word blessed in this context would mean something close to the concept of lucky attached to this)

Irrelevant. No, no, no.Its not just seeing with your eyes 'cause Thomas had to stick his fingers in the holes too.And Jesus is talking in past tense. He doesn't say blessed are those who will believe. he's talking about the people around him at that time that believed he had risen before they have to stick their fingers in the holes to find out for themselves. What about sticking your fingers in the holes? There was more than simply sight there. And presumably, Thomas was seeing Jesus while they were in the same room together, but Thomas didn't have his "Ah-ha!" moment until after he stuck his fingers in the hole. The blessed are those who don't get the visual evidence and have to believe for some other reason rather than those who get to actually see Jesus with thier own eyes!?That doesn't seem very well thought out....

Relevant since you defined the type of evidence Thomas required as 'concrete', suggesting that other type of evidence (testimonial, for example) isn't concrete. The text never says he stuck his fingers in his holes... Ok I'll take another approach, since you don't seem to understand. I'm sorry I express myself so badly.The person who has little evidence, yet still comes to the right conclusion, is blessed. Blessed in the sense that because he had little evidence, maybe that in a lot of alternate realities he would have missed it and believed something else.It's like the muslim who discovers the truth of christianity. I consider him blessed, because he was in a very none-encouraging environment, with little to work with, and of all his entourage who believe something else, he actually managed to find the truth. He is ''blessed'' or ''lucky''.SO it's not in the sense he is blessed and he is above everybody else, it is much closer to being 'lucky'. I'm sure you consider yourself lucky to be born where you were, rather then in poverty. But I guess we can consider that you were 'blessed' also.AbE. This is considering the biblical truth to be 'true'. Of course. If atheism were true, I would consider myself lucky to be of that opinion considering all the people around me believing the lies of theism.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

When Jesus told Thomas to conduct his empirical test He added "And be ... believing ...""Then He said to thoas, bring your finger here and see My hands, and bring your hand and put it ineo My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing." (John 20:27) Regardless of how much empirical verification a man has, it is finally up to his volition to "be believing". This is a choice of the human will. This is the decision to accept the Person of Jesus. " ... and do not be unbelieving, but believing"Just by reading the passage we have no idea whether or not Thomas actually placed his hands into the wounds of the resurrected Jesus. We know Thomas was invited to perform what he vowed would be his only standard for authenticating what the others had said.But we do know that Thomas finally gave in as to his will. He made the decision to "be believing". He received Jesus personally as his God and his Lord.Given all the empirical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus there is no garuantee that a man will aquiesce to Jesus as Lord. There are many who have just set their will to be and remain unbelieving.If Jesus had had confidence that all that was needed was scientific proof He would have not added His charge - " ... and do not be unbelieving, but believing".

I equally doubt that every testimony given in court is the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I would hazard a guess that more than one person has gone to jail for perjuring themselves on the stand.What we look for in testimonials is motive. What does the person have to gain for making a specific claim? The source is just as important as the actual statement.

Of course, I totally agree. Nevertheless testimonial evidence is usually considered important in courts. Because it is just like personnal visual evidence, only with another person as intermidiary. So as you said, this person must also be evaulated in regards to the claims.

It doesn't matter what I, or the courts, define as evidence. We're discussing what Jesus was talking about. He was certainly talking about evidence that is more than testimony.But now I'm curious, are you saying testimony is concrete evidence? Even in court I don't think it is... Not explicitly, but its implied, and many people see it as that way. Heck, look at the art of the scene: But that doesn't make sense as following from the story.It goes like this: "Hey Tom, Jesus rose. 'Nah, I gotta see this' *sticks finger in*, "OMG, it IS Jesus!" To which Jesus replies (according to you): 'The people who will believe in me with little evidence are lucky that they arent going to be believing something else".No, that just doesn't make sense.It makes more sense that Jesus is talking about people who believe in him without having to see for themselves that its true before they believe.