Good Question For Catholics and Others

[BluffTHIS!]

Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe."

Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, "Peace be with you." Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing." Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"

Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."

-John 20:24-29

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you suppose it's so important to God that man deny the very common sense He instilled in him in the first place?

Would you give your child a gift and then punish her because she used your gift?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you suppose it's so important to God that man deny the very common sense He instilled in him in the first place?

Would you give your child a gift and then punish her because she used your gift?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is you who are making assumptions, namely that God having given man reason expects him not to make use of it. There are certain protestant posters here who make that implicit assumption, but not us catholics.

The point of Jesus' teaching is that one should accept the testimony of credible witnesses as well as the teachings of God and His prophets. And it is perfectly acceptable and necessary to apply one's reason to those teachings to derive their full logical meaning, although again many protestants seem to have a problem with that.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
The point of Jesus' teaching is that one should accept the testimony of credible witnesses as well as the teachings of God and His prophets. And it is perfectly acceptable and necessary to apply one's reason to those teachings to derive their full logical meaning, although again many protestants seem to have a problem with that.

[/ QUOTE ]
In Acts you will find that everytime Paul arrived in a new town, he immediately went to the synagogue and reasoned with them through the scriptures concerning the truth of Jesus Christ. I find it interesting that the Bible uses that word specifically: reasoned. There shouldn't be any doubt that God expects us to use our minds to arrive at a decision concerning the truth of His word.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The point of Jesus' teaching is that ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Such statements are credible only if the person never says " We cannot claim to know gods motives/reasons ... ".

Then again, if they do say that, how can they claim to know X is for certain. Seems a basic problem with theism, and, yes, I realize theists simply claim both positions and move on.

luckyme,
My mind would change if it thinks I'm wrong.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point of Jesus' teaching is that ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Such statements are credible only if the person never says " We cannot claim to know gods motives/reasons ... ".


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree if you mean that we cannot by reason alone know God's motivations. But we can claim to know such if He has told us in His divine revelation.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree if you mean that we cannot by reason alone know God's motivations. But we can claim to know such if He has told us in His divine revelation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with that is the same as with the "I'm flying, I'm flying" experience. If one sets reason aside then there's no way to differentiate a 'son of sam' type message from any other, whether a personal recent revelation or an historical one. Iow, 'revelaton' is an experince that somebody had. Accepting an experience ( regardless of how vivid, or emotional, or unreal) is still accepting an experience and freezing out the "but they're not aging" part.

luckyme

[ QUOTE ]
Would you give your child a gift and then punish her because she used your gift?

[/ QUOTE ]
The analogy isn't quite right. It's more like giving a child a swiss army knife which they then use to kill people.

Plus, God didn't give us the gift of reason. Humans got reason by disobeying God and eating from the forbidden tree.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Plus, God didn't give us the gift of reason. Humans got reason by disobeying God and eating from the forbidden tree.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we didn't have a reasoning ability, then how is it our fault that we ate the fruit after being given the temptation by the serpent? What good is free will without reason?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> The analogy isn't quite right. It's more like giving a child a swiss army knife which they then use to kill people. </font>

I knew someone would bring this up. Still, if you give a kid who's too young a chemistry set. You shouldn't be surprised if someone gets hurt.

<font color="blue"> Plus, God didn't give us the gift of reason. Humans got reason by disobeying God and eating from the forbidden tree. </font>

Do you REALLY believe this? Then how did Eve <u>reason</u> with Adam and get him to eat from the forbidden tree?