Why is Faith a Virtue?

Robin,Isn't literature your speciality? I would say that a novelist who doesn't understand the insides of his villians uses stereotypes. Think of Shakespeare's villians. I would say Shakespeare had to in some sense understand and even empathize with say Macbeth in order to get such a vital portrait of him. I don't think that means Shakespeare approved or recommended Macbeths's behaviour just that he could understand it.And though I don't believe in elves and magic I thoroughly enjoy Tolkien. It's called suspension of disbelief, which is another way of saying suspension of belief.If you disagree that this is possible I'd really like you to write at length your theory of literature because I think your views are very unusual.lfen

oh. atp. i was close. that must be the one that alternates between the two.and it's not really currency... it's the transfer between atp and adp and the release and rebonding of that phosphate that releases energy. energy is in bonds, not in substances.

I was specifically and ONLY responding to your remark about how it's "only" "hearsay" by pointing out that we are dependent on precisely the same kind of secondhand information every day. I was not addressing inerrancy or reliability as such, merely our dependence on this *kind* of information in the normal course of things.It ought to be obvious that I don't regard news reports as inerrant.I'll add too that in the case of everyday news reports nobody carries on about a lack of evidence, although for most of the news reports few of us would be in a position to track down the evidence personally if necessary, and all you would get if people did go looking for evidence is more people testifying to that evidence, or more "hearsay."The point is that there is NOTHING INHERENTLY UNTRUSTWORTHY about witness reports or secondhand witness reports. We simply cannot have empirical evidence for most of the things in our lives. And even if in some cases a report is in doubt and must be verified you still only get witness reports in verification, not direct evidence.{Edit: Strictly speaking a witness report is not hearsay. The Flood story is hearsay because Noah didn't write it himself. But then are Jesus' teachings hearsay because He didn't write them himself even though the reports are written by witnesses? What about Luke's report? He recounts many things he himself didn't actually witness. But I would say that before the days of recorded speech and television this is the only kind of information we ever had to go on for accounts of any event, or accounts of what anybody actually said too. And even with television we know it can be faked, distorted by choice of what to show, and so on, so how much more reliable is that anyway?{Edit: To tie this into the theme of the thread, I don't think faith is a virtue in the normal run of things, but we all operate on the basis of faith in many things every day, what people tell us, and there is no way around it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I was an atheist for most of my life, so it's not hard to imagine.I'm not sure we all have the same evidence. Is it the same evidence if I can see it and you can't? Who's to say you aren't distorting the evidence through your own biases, just as you think I am? It isn't a virtue to have faith in something false as they tragically did at Jonestown or Halle Bop. It isn't a virtue unless it is faith in the true God who is the true living God who is worthy of trust, and then it is a virtue because it honors Him to trust Him, dishonors Him to distrust Him. It is especially a virtue to trust Him enough to put up with all kinds of annoyances and ridicule and persecution for Him -- which was the original question I thought, not just faith as such.But if you don't think it's a virtue then it's not a virtue. Why is this important? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thats not why you would enjoy it (if you do enjoy it). What you describe is that which gives you something to enjoy (or not). You don't really say whether or not you consider these things your right. Patently, they are not. You have no rights. Your waving your fist in the face of the very person whose grace you NEED. This he permits you to do. And you can go on doing that forever - long, long after the time of dispensation (the time when grace is available) is over. But its a nutty thing to do imoHe does provide plenty for people to conclude he exists and allows too that which enables them to chose to reject him. Science is great but it can be used as a false god too. Sometimes its easier to stand back, take a breadth and think a little laterally. Like simply looking at the world and saying to yourself "It's all a result of chance and accident". Does it not ring a little hollow? If so...good.If not? Well you were the one who decided that it didn't at all ring hollow. Your choice. No one is forcing you to accept that it is all and accident and chance, are they?. If what I say is true then you will accept, when you stand before him, that it was your choice in the end. You will have chosen for Hell. For it is not like you are ignorant of the argument. You heard it, but you didn't believe it. You were not convinced by the evidence. Romans 8:1 "Therefore, there is now NO CONDEMNATION for those who are in Christ" (if you are "in Christ" it means you are a Christian). A Christian has no reason to fear anymore. Not God (I mean fear in a craven sense. I do fear God in a respectful, awed sense), not death, not what happens after death. Personally? I look forward to it. No worries Rick. I was the same way for 38 years (and I argued a little more vociferously and belligerently than your good self, right before I became a Christian). Never say never!

No. I like the idea that I'm an insignificant speck of life formed from heavy elements that were themselves synthesized in a Sun that lived and died billions of years ago. To me that is truly fascinating.In the words of the great philospher Eric Idle, "You came into the world with nothing, you'll leave with nothing, what have you lost? Nothing!Life is short. Why waste it worrying about what some God thinks? If I found myself at God's feet I would indeed tell him why I didn't believe. I would also ask him lots of questions about his godly powers and infinite knowledge. I most certainly would NOT beg his forgiveness. If he still chose to punish me, then so be it. Better to be in the jail of a tyrant than to sit at his right hand.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

In court it is. Why not?
Why is it a virtue in religion, expecially in light of the fact that faith in the normal run of things is generally not going to cause people to fly jets into sky scrapers.

It most certainly is not: Because there's no more to it than the unconscious decision to trust the note your spouse left you about mundane matters, or a particular news item on the TV etc. I already said it's not a virtue if it's trust in a false god. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I know what hearsay is.What is a witness report?
If it is someone telling it to me first hand, it is not hearsay. If I repeat that report, or if it is memorialized in writing, and then try to use it as proof, it is hearsay.Is a witness report like a police report?
Do you think police reports are admittable as evidence?

Why are you quibbling about this? You are basically repeating what I've already said. My definitions have been just fine. Legal Dictionary | Law.com ;Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So great. We know what hearsay is, and we know what a witness is. What is a witness report?

What is your point????? I merely said that strictly speaking a witness report is not hearsay. That's perfectly true. I was only responding to the umpteenth accusation that the Bible is "hearsay." I already defended it AS hearsay, saying that's often all we have to go on about a vast number of things we take for granted in our lives. I then said that some of the Bible is witness reports, and strictly speaking that is not hearsay. You said that's not true in court. I proved that it is true in court. But I don't care about court. I'm not talking about court. It is not hearsay because it's from the mouth of the one who experienced the event reported on. That's a witness report.There is nothing wrong with any of that. You seem to be in a mood to quibble for no good reason.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Luke's Gospel drew on the Gospel of Mark as did the Gospel of Mathew. Mark's sources with the exception of the midrashes he provided from old testament sources are no longer extant.Paul appears to be the earliest writings and he is explicit that he was not a witness and scarely mentions any events. His teachings come from his own personal sources whether these be mystical or intuitional. Whether you agree with Doherty's mythicist position or not he provides important arguments against the notion that the events of the life of Jesus were well reported. They weren't.It does appear that there were books of sayings being circulated perhaps along the lines of the Gospel of Thomas. The story of Jesus emerges slowly over a hundred year period and was worked out and developed and then finalized by the early church.Two thousand years of tradition has further gelled these versions in a number of tradtions. There is a history of Christianity. There is no history of Jesus. It's all legend. It's not clear whether there was a actual founding teacher or not. I suspect there was but very little is known. His earthly life was of no interest to Paul which leads Doherty to suspect that Paul was talking about a mystical Jesus entirely.lfen

No you didn't. You proved that testimony is admissable in court. Not a witness report - whatever that is.

Oh well, you are into this nitpicking for no reason that I can see.A witness report is just my way of saying written witness testimony. Or in other words it is synonymous with "witness testimony."We are not talking about court cases. I answered your challenge about the court context nevertheless.Oh well. I've said all I had to say about your topic anyway. Maybe you can go on to discuss it with someone else.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.