Why is Faith a Virtue?

I've said it's a judgment call. I read it and their honesty is patent to me, clear as a bell, shining. And if that weren't enough there are many of them supporting the same story. That should be evidence of its truth. There is no external evidence, as has been said over and over. What you see is what you get. Who they are is irrelevant. If you don't believe it, that's your judgment call.

What is it in "self-verifying" that escapes you? I base my judgment on my excellent nose for honesty, sincerity and authenticity. As I said, it's a judgment call. If you don't believe it, don't. I am indeed saying that. Absolutely. 66 books by different authors that support each other and further one story as they do is wonderful self-authentication. No, that's just your crabbed spin on it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

i actually don't generally want to get out of bed in the morning. but i got shit to do. why? cause you say so? why don't you do some research and find out what eople who study the brain say about eyewitness accounts.

It isn't a single book. It's 66 separate books by many different authors written over 1500 years. And I couldn't care less if all the historians in the world are wrong. I recognize the truthfulness of these writers. Sorry, I'll never meet your standards. Hopeless I guess.

If eyewitness accounts were completely untrustworthy you couldn't trust people around you enough to navigate the world.

Obviously, it isn't. We're all idiots and fools. Take it or leave it.

There is secondhand eyewitness testimony, which is all any of the written testimony is.

There were thousands upon thousands around to correct errors. One could not get away with a lie in that company. There were 66 writers of the whole Bible, at least a dozen of the New Testament. Their stories mesh. They were surrounded by THOUSANDS who had witnessed the events. On top of that their honesty is obvious, patent, manifest. It's a judgment call. It's obvious. I believe them because of their veracity, I don't find veracity based on belief. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

They were surrounded by THOUSANDS who had witnessed the events.

---

So those people wrote about what they had see? in other text besides the bible - are you thinking about a particular source? just the first three or four really strong ones will be fine.

I'm saying that because there were thousands of witnesses the writers couldn't have gotten away with lies.This is really laughable. YOu guys really try to convince yourselves that it's possible for all those reports to be complete fabrications as if they were written in a vacuum instead of in the context of a teeming society, and weren't read or heard by thousands who could judge their accuracy, and thousands who would be happy to find fault with them as well; as if those writings didn't go on and influence millions, or as if those millions were simply all complete idiots but only debunkers of today are right about anything. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So if they influenced so many people of the time - SOMEONE must have recorded those events. What do you think is the best secular source recording the actions of Jesus?

you're confusing interaction being untrustworthy and memory and recording being untrustworthy. i can in fact believe that the computer in front of me is sitting on a very solid desk and i am sitting on a chair in front of it. assuming existence is real, these perceptions can be trusted. however. if you ask me tomorrow what side of the page a part of a text is on, my response is probably flawed. if you ask me if the guy i met had blue eyes or brown, i'll probably be mistaken. if you ask me if the whole world flooded or just "my" whole world flooded after 60 years, i'm probably going to forget that my story is a fish tale. we invent the history that we want to remember. it's how the human mind works. yes, i know that i wore a yellow shirt yesterday. do i remember what i was wearing the morning of my 5th birthday? yes. and i remember where my dad took me for breakfast and what road it was on and what i ate. how about the day before? no. no idea. how about the last conversation i had with the friend i used to have? i might remember a few things and i might melange several conversations we had. but chances are i have no idea and if you make me recount it, my brain will invent something for me to recount. but chances are it will be an exaggerration or worse.moreover. i have memories i never experienced. they are fabricated from the stories of others and from photographs. one time, i went horseback riding with my family at my uncle's ranch. i don't remember what the weather was like but in my memory it is very dark and hazy because the photo i have is thus. was it realy? probably not. it was probably just into the evening and simply too dark for the film.maybe the day jesus died, there was a really bad thunderstorm and it was really dark. or maybe god turned of the sun. i don't remember, but my mystical tendencies will sugest the latter.

why does something have to be a lie if it is untrue? when taking a test i know for sure that the output of the citric acid cycle is adp. but i could be MISTAKEN and confusing it with an entirely different cycle. the same with events.(btw. it's been 4 years and i have NO IDEA what comes out of the citric acid cycle.)

They didn't influence "secular" sources. Secular sources rejected them or ignored them. What's a "secular source" anyway? Somebody who didn't believe the reports, that's all. The ones who believed the reports were the ones who had the motivation to pass them on.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

All I am saying is that the veracity of the Biblical reports in my judgment is above suspicion, based on how they read and how they work together as a whole. It's a judgment call. If you don't see it, that's your judgment call.