[SoothingDave]

People who require miracles to believe have a weak faith (if you can call it faith at all), but blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe. Isn't the story of doubting Thomas in your Bible?

I assume you are in agreement that the requirement, imposed by the RCC, that a few "miracles" must be shown in order to declare a "Saint" is fallacious and prone to error. Further, that none of us can infallibly declare anyone a Saint.

How do you get that from that?

In one instance we are talking about needing miracles in order to believe in God, to have faith in Jesus, etc.

In the other we are talking about proof that someone is in heaven. Two totally different things.

We would still believe in God without these sainthood-proofs.

Apples and oranges.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Apples and oranges.

Limbs and/or eyes. One example?

[Cronos]

Apples and oranges

Such comparisons seem the norm for those who seek to justify their break from Christ's Church.