The response: "You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me"Yet, I'm disinclined to judge Thomas based upon how Jesus responded to him. — Heister Eggcart
Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."
Jesus said, "Become passers-by."
Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."
Pagels identifies a textual battle between The Gospel of Thomas (rediscovered in Egypt in 1945) and The Gospel of John. While these gospels have many superficial similarities, Pagels demonstrates that John, unlike Thomas, declares that Jesus is equivalent to "God the Father" as identified in the Old Testament. Thomas, in contrast, shares with other supposed secret teachings a belief that Jesus is not God but, rather, is a teacher who seeks to uncover the divine light in all human beings. Pagels then shows how the Gospel of John was used by Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon and others to define orthodoxy during the second and third centuries. The secret teachings were literally driven underground, disappearing until the Twentieth Century. As Pagels argues this process "not only impoverished the churches that remained but also impoverished those [Irenaeus] expelled.
I certainly think Thomas should be the patron saint of scientists. — andrewk
Believing without good evidence is nearly always a harmful thing to do — andrewk
How ought we view Thomas, and trust in general? — Heister Eggcart
Francis Fukuyama wrote a book on trust about 20 years ago. I am not very familiar with that particular work, but he touches upon the topic in some of his more contemporary work such as Political Order and Political Decay.Trust is under-studied. It feels as if mutual trust is so obvious a basis for most human lives, we forget to mention it. Or analyse it. — mcdoodle
But this has nothing to do with believing without evidence. Indeed Jesus didn't say one should believe without evidence. In fact, even if he had said "you should believe in me without evidence", that wouldn't entail that you should believe everything without evidence, only that you should believe in Jesus without evidence. But the statement doesn't even suggest that. It says that Blessed are those who believe without seeing me. It talks about their blessedness, not about their moral character or right and wrong. Second of all, "not seeing" isn't the same as "not having evidence". So it seems that the whole narrative that you built is a bit artificial, purposefully misrepresenting what is there - sorry to put it this bluntly, as I do generally appreciate your insights."You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me" — andrewk
Otherwise why is it that spontaneous love is so inclined to – yes, so in love with – making a test of the love? This is just because love has not, by becoming a duty, in the deepest sense undergone the test. From this comes what the poet would call sweet unrest […] The lover wants to test the beloved. The friend wants to test the friend. Testing certainly has its basis in love, but this violently flaming desire to test and this hankering desire to be put to the test explain that the love itself is unconsciously uncertain […] But when it is a duty to love, neither is a test needed nor the insulting foolhardiness of wanting to test, because if love is higher than every test it has already more than conquered […] When one shall, it is for ever decided; and when you will understand that you shall love, your love is for ever secure — S. Kierkegaard
The response: "You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me" — andrewk
He argues that at least part of the reason for the diverging economic fortunes between northern and southern Europe (e.g. between Germany and Greece) lies in the rampant mistrust of government among Southern Europeans, which leads to an impairment in civic and administrative functions such as tax collection (people conduct business in the "shadow economy" rather than keep it on the books and fork over the taxes to the government), leading to a substantial loss of revenue in the national coffers, and precipitating in part the financial hardships we're currently witnessing in some of those countries. — Arkady
But if we are to become like God, what are we to do? Isn't that the idea, to become like Christ?Theologically, God would not test himself, but because we are not God, we must wrestle with both ourselves and others, so that we might sense God's love more fully. — Heister Eggcart
The latter is a symbol for the former, indeed :PIt seems like he has failed to distinguish between the nature of God's love and our own imperfect forms of love. — Heister Eggcart
But if we are to become like God, what are we to do? Isn't that the idea, to become like Christ? — Agustino
Well I aim to say that you are right, we are not God. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt to be like God. And, in-so-far as being like God involves trusting in our love, we are to trust - faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. I personally think you read the Doubting Thomas story too literally. Its meaning isn't the literal event of Thomas not believing Jesus was resurrected - but rather Thomas not having faith.But if we are to become like God, what are we to do? Isn't that the idea, to become like Christ? — Agustino
No, I think this is superficial too. Kierkegaard was against outward passion and for inward passion. Indeed, what I quoted is only a small passage. If you read more, you'll see he calls "burning passion" to be the product of anxiety, and therefore inadequate - a deception.His message wasn't that people should sin, but rather that people should really believe, and feel things fully, become entirely invested, consumed, and act with that genuineness, or good faith. This is superior to not believing or feeling anything with conviction, and not sinning, as well as doing a whole lot of nothing else either. — Wosret
Kierkegaard was an ironist and a romantic.Kierkegaards mortal enemies were the ironists, romanticists — Wosret
Yes, he did protest against this.This "lack of passion" is rather an attack on not really believing, and feeling things fully, and powerfully -- but rather aways lukewarm, doubtful, relativistic everything, and nothing is true bullshit, and no one really feels or believes anything completely anymore. — Wosret
Why do you think that? To me the story has always been very simple and has nothing to do with personal identity. It is simply that Thomas does not believe that Jesus's life has continued beyond the crucifixion, until he meets the risen Jesus, and Jesus complains about that.He's trying to distinguish between himself as Jesus and himself as Christ. — Heister Eggcart
How do you interpret that in the context of Paul's experience on the road to Damascus, or indeed any other non-corporeal experience? I would call that 'seeing' Jesus because I think the 'see' in the John passage means 'perceive' and is not strictly limited to the visual sense.It says that Blessed are those who believe without seeing me. — Agustino
Works of LoveWhere's that from? — Wosret
Yes but don't be mistaken about everything written under a pseudonym as being K's own views - that's precisely why he is an ironist. Works of Love is arguably his central work - written in his own name. Anxiety in the sense used where I quoted is fear - fear of loss. Anxiety is what remains for the one who hasn't sworn his love by the higher - by the eternal - by duty. That's why Kierkegaard says "you shall love" as a command - it's a duty to love, whether this is in romantic love or otherwise. Only this can make human love eternal - grounding it in God. When one has sworn by God, then there is no anxiety left - neither is there any burning passion on the surface, it has all shifted inwards. Outward passion is always born out of fear - you fear that you will lose the beloved, your passion is merely an effort to prevent that or mask the anxiety. The fear is certainly born out of love, but it is a fear that exists only in the lover who hasn't sworn by the eternal.I know that his concept of anxiety is half a response to Kant, and also other guys I haven't read, and the "anxiety" is basically the friction between duty and freedom. The anxiety he's talking about here is a habitual, or ritualistic crippling of action. Something like, all identity is based in memory and recollection, so that the crippling anxiety is always recalled, and recreated to prevent actions by rendering the idea of them impossible to you. — Wosret
Personally I would count those experiences as deeply personal and vague - totally unlike the kind of seeing that can be confirmed by society. There is a leap of faith in holding true to those very personal experiences - one could always discount them as hallucinations for example.If we include that and other non-visual spiritual encounters as 'seeing' then to believe without seeing simply means being gullible, and believing whichever proselyte, from whichever religion, just knocked on our door, doesn't it? — andrewk
Why do you think that? To me the story has always been very simple and has nothing to do with personal identity. It is simply that Thomas does not believe that Jesus's life has continued beyond the crucifixion, until he meets the risen Jesus, and Jesus complains about that. — andrewk
If we include that and other non-visual spiritual encounters as 'seeing' then to believe without seeing simply means being gullible, and believing whichever proselyte, from whichever religion, just knocked on our door, doesn't it? — andrewk
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.