Nice way of accusing me of removing context while doing it yourself.

Assuming that what is written is true - and not just a folk tale like the Little Red Riding Hood, which is more probable - and that this specific God exists and became his own son and then died and got resurrected.

If we take into account the context that this text has been written several hundreds of years after it happened, anyone alive back then and also today can *only* be one of those who believe without seeing, because we can’t go back in time to experience it ourselves like Thomas or the other apostles did.

So, we can’t be the one “who believes what he saw with evidence”. And we can only be “those who haven’t witnessed the resurrection and risen Christ”. And this is one of the fundamentals of any religion, but especially Christianity where you have to believe in Christ otherwise you will go to hell.

There is also the subtle nuance that if there is evidence then you don’t need to believe, you just know.

With this context, at least I come to the conclusion that “religion demands you to go against evidence and just believe”, otherwise you will go to hell, which nobody wants.