Doubting Thomas, Saul of Tarsus, and Chrissy the Apostate

These two individuals have been in the back of my mind today, but not in the way that most people think of them. For those of you who aren't familiar, these are two characters of the Bible who were lucky enough to be given actual touchable proof of God. Doubting Thomas was one of the twelve apostles and is most famous for his line in the book of John in which he says he cannot believe that Christ has risen until he has touched the place where his nails were, and put his hand on his side. A few days later Jesus appears in the house with Thomas and the others, and Thomas' doubts are laid to rest. Of course, he gets reprimanded for doubting in the first place, and is reminded that those who believe without seeing are the most blessed. Saul of Tarsus, who later because the Apostle Paul, is famous for his persecution of Christians. His days consisted of arresting and martyring Christians until one day, on the road to Damascus, Christ appears before Saul and says "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?". Though Saul is temporarily blinded, he accepts that Christ is Lord and spends the rest of his years in service to God as the Apostle Paul. Ok, so by now you're thinking "What is your point already" and your beginning to have flash backs to Sunday School. My point is this, why can't I be a Saul or a Thomas? Most of you know that I have renounced my faith in recent years, and when the topic comes up as to what it would take for me to believe again, these two fellows come to mind. If you think about it, these cats got off easy. Take the other apostles for example, they had already personally seen the risen Christ. So why should we judge Thomas for not believing their story? He didn't see what they had seen. It's not really fair if you think about it, that he was expected to just "believe and have faith" when the others got proof. So what if for the rest of his time he is remembered as being a doubter, at least he got the opportunity to have those doubts vanquished. I think that's a pretty fair trade off. I'll take that deal. Label me a doubter, an apostate, whatever, just give me the undoubtable, unwavering, unmistakable proof as to what the truth really is. Let me stick my fingers in the nail holes, metaphorically speaking. Even Saul's trade off was pretty awesome. I'll take being blind for a few days if I can actually see Christ in his glory and know what is true. Hell, blind me for life if I can live the rest of those days with an unwavering peace as to the answers of the universe.We're suppose to read these biblical stories and find inspiration, but all I get is confusion and jealousy. Why do they get proof while the rest of us are just suppose to believe? I mean common Moses got a talking bush, and the disciples got to be there first hand for all the miracles. I guess my point is this, it's easy to be a believer when you get to see it for yourself. Moses, the disciples, Mary Magdalene, these people shouldn't be revered in the way that we revere them because it's easy to believe and live for God when you have unmistakable proof that your on the right track. Instead we get a little book with 101 interpretations as to what each scripture means, which direction is the right direction, and of course the probability (and likelihood) that over 2000 years it's been altered a bit. And please save your breathe on all that "still small voice" baloney, or sense of inner peace garbage. That's all in your head, but that is a topic for another blog. What I'm talking about is something real, something tangible, something I can put my finger on and have no other explanation, nor need another explanation for how and why it is. I'm not talking about a miraculous cancer cure, or a baby who was supposed to die but didn't, I'm talking some freaky other-world biblical stuff.  Until that happens though, I'll have to remain "Chrissy the Apostate" living as a "wicked generation looking for signs" (Luke 11).