Why is Faith a Virtue?

Yes. I think that the continuing functioning and reproduction of living organisms when consciously expressed is what we mean by faith. All living organisms could be described as living in faith. A bacteria multiplies in "the faith" that it there will be sufficient food, etc. Same with humans. We don't know but we go on.Then there is the codifying of faith by what Berman terms the SAC, the Sacred Authority Complex. Here shamen, priests, etc. take charge of faith and use it to bolster their position, or that of the cultural authority, King, High Priest, etc. Then it's not enough to have faith, you must have faith in the authority. Faith itself is inherent. The co option of faith by the SAC was a development in human culture.lfen

This is the first I've heard of self-verification. I think you are just introducing another word for circular argument. Yet given all the contradictions in the Bible I don't see why you are claiming it's self-verifying,when it's not even consistent! I don't know what you mean by patently either, do you mean established by tradition?I'm not sure what you mean by the honesty of the witnesses either. I don't think they were generally dishonest men but they weren't attempting to be historians in the contemporary sense of the word. They were working out explanations, morals, and just good stories but they often had very partisan agendas such as upholding Judah over Israel. The Bible is largely the compilation of the scribes of the southern kingdom and they subtly and not so subtly give their support to the kings and traditions of Judah.Marc Zvi Brettler writes in How to read the Bible pub. Jewish Publication Society, 2005, pp 107 You may prefer the teachings, concepts, language, etc. of the books compiled into the Bible and there is no disputing taste but it is false to claim the Bible is superior to some other ancient book on the grounds that it is a modern consistent history. It's full of made up stuff, myths, contradictions as texts from differing sources were combined into the final scrolls plus the errors introduced by scribes.And regarding Deuteronomy someone was dishonest. I don't know who all was in on the rewrite of religious practises that established the Jeruasalem Temple as the sole legitimate venue for ritual sacrifice but the practise was introduce late by finding a scroll that contraditicted what everyone believed up until that time. It was a clever and I suspect dishonest attempt to monoplolize power by the High Priest of the Jerusalem Temple.It's a case of people living in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.lfen

The MAJOR reason?! Disbelief in the supernatural? Shame on us, we didn't believe in fairies and so we killed Tinkerbell by our disbelief! I'm so ashamed of myself. Next time I'll believe in fairies, unicorns, and Noahs flood. No more science, facts, and evidence for me, then maybe Tinkerbell will come back to life!The major reason has to do with evidence and the failure of evidence. Belief in the supernatural means belief in fairy stories and the imaginings of the ancients. None of those things are evidence. But you won't look at the evidence and studies because your religion forbids critical examination because well, that would be the end of it. Where would Mormonism be if Mormon's studied all the evidence about Joseph Smith, or Islam be if Mohammed was critically examined? It's exactly the same with your religion.lfen

The earth and all the things on it and buried in it don't exist? Interesting refutation. You are seeking refuge in soliphism which does give you irrefutability if that is what you want. You are aware of the price you pay for adopting solipism?As too hundreds of witnesses the other traditions have their witnesses also and currently we can call on thousands of scientists in any and each of the disciplines. Somehow I don't think you took a vote to decide on the religion you would believe though. Well they are sometimes confirming and sometimes contradicting. Who killed Goliath? Was it David or Elhanan? What is the proper way to prepare the paschal lamb? By broiling or boiling? And the writers of the scrolls collected in the Bible would even change what God said as times changed. Even utterances attributed to God are subject to revision, that must be the enhancing part.Supremely credible? Only to the credulous.lfen

No, you have witness reports. Real evidence would be physical evidence or something like photographs or casts or such.Witness reports come with lots of variables that need to be accounted for. In the case of many of the books in the Bible what you have are traditions handed down that are being written up. The witnesses are not neccesarily who they claim to be. The book of Isiah represents the work of three and possible more scribes.The Bible contains some history much of it distorted and inaccurate.lfen

I really don't think Faith's statements are hypocritical. What is disturbing to me is that she sincerely believes a particular traditional religious teaching about the world that is extreme in its assertions of a world view for which their is much falsifying evidence and no supportive evidence.The emotional hold of this fantasy on millions of people amazes me but although there are hypocrites who prey on this vast audience say by scamming them with faith healing or just revivals doesn't mean that most of them are insincere. I suppose I even understand their sincere expression of belief. I guess I am appalled at their willingness to refuse any rationality in order to believe in their unsupported traditional viewpoint.Faith (the concept not the person) is clearly the value of obediance that leaders seek. Faith is a virtue because the High Priest and Kings of Jerusalem wanted obediance to their laws and faith that God was behind them and would punish unbelievers was a very useful way to gain compliance. Same with Christianity. If you have faith in Christ and believe that Falwell, or Robertson is conveying God's word then you will send the money and vote as they suggest.Good and bad things come from this faith. People give aid to the poor and suffering but also blindly support the vast sums that Bush and the military industrial complex are spending on wars of profit for a few wealthy men, but because of blind faith believers only see God's will being done and damn the environment.Global warming? Who cares, Christ is returning anyday real soon now and this earth is slated to be demolished anyway. Might as well, as another intellectual giant of a conservatives says, to rape it while you can. Scum like Cheney and Bush don't even care about their descendents. They got theirs and they don't care what kind of suffering anyone else is left with.Get it while the getting is good. Make the planet a cesspool or garbage dump as long as they get wealth then screw everyone else. This is a hypocritical religion, but Faith the person is simply being duped and used by these people. Those are the hypocrites who get wealthy by laying waste to this planet exploiting the ancient delusions of the pious and faithful.lfen

My characterizations were focused on the politics of the United States and the Bush neo conservatives who are thus far refusing to sign the Kyoto accords. They are with the help of the political pulpits of such as Pat Robertson exploiting people's faith for political ends and they are getting wealthier as a result.At this time I am sketchng out a theory of faith that sees life in all its forms taking risks against the chance of the environment to annihilate it or fail to support it. I'm thinking that the function of organisms could be described as faith, or that life lives in faith.By the time we encounter civilization and writing we also encounter what Maurice Berman calls the Sacred Authority Complex which in his writings he often abbreviates as the SAC. Here religion and the priest class are used to encourage, enforce, or control a large population of people into a functional social conformity but civilization has its price which can be very high. With the developement of the SAC faith comes into service of the SAC and the rulers. Faith is now in the authority of the state and its high priests and is used to further obediance. Such was clearly the function of Judaism.Early Christianity was different, but note it wasn't until Constantine adopted Christianity as an instrument of the state that it came to dominate Europe and it did this by political control and oppression of all it's competitors.The original Christianity looked to the end of the state, the world actually. That didn't happen. It has survived as a typical Sacred Authority Complex.lfen

There are lots of stories recounted in the books chosen for the Bible. Which same story are you referring to?And who killed Goliath?lfen

Well, you are correct that what we know as modern Europe was largely barbarian at that time.I should have said the Roman Empire. Italy is a part of Europe. Later the influence spread north as civilization moved into those areas and the Catholic Church initially played a very important political role in the European civilization that grew out of the Roman empire in Italy and it's now Christian state religion.lfen

Well, what about the passage in 2 Sam. 21:19?Brettler is giving careful reading to the Bible. Yes he contradicts the traditional glosses on the text by his exact reading. You can call that revisionist sure, and a good thing that someone is paying attention to the details.That the Bible is without contradiction is as much a folk tale as the story of the giant killing that was inserted into the narrative in Samuel by as a yet unknown hand. It's not history it's folk legend perhaps of the same sort as the story about George Washington chopping down a cherry tree. A fiction that was composed to recommend always telling the truth in an age that didn't seem to have appreciation of irony.lfen

This is the statement about the author from the book jacket:"Marc Zvi Brettler received his B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. in Near Eastern and Judaic Studies from Brandeis University, where he is now Dora Golding Professor of Biblical Literature and chair of the Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies"It further states he is co-editor of The Jewish Study Bible.I don't know him personally. His book How to Read the Bible is published by the Jewish Publication Society. He is scarely unfamilier with Hebrew or the customs of the time.lfen

Yes! Jefferson was quite radical in some of his ideas.lfen

Well, he appears to be fluent in ancient Hebrew and has finished his Ph.D. He is not an atheist but states at the end of the book that he is an observant Jew for whom the Bible is more than the subject of his historical-critical scholarship. So I wouldn't say just a version of Brian.However both Marc and Brian are historical-critical scholars. Would you admit that Brian really knows the old testament? A least as a historical document?Btw in trying to gather materials about Christianity and European history I realize that I just don't have the time to range over hundreds of years. It's just a huge chunk of history to debate and other things are more pressing or of more interest at the moment. I'll leave it that we have differing views on the matter.This was the most recent work I've read on the subject:The Closing of the Western Mind: the rise of faith and the fall of reason by Charles Freeman, Heinemann, 2002a review of it can be found here:
http://homepages.which.net/...ical.faith/reviews/freeman.htmEdward Gibbon I think did what Freeman did several hundred years earlier but his work is immense. Here is a link for those interested in Gibbon: But if Gibbon in his awesomely massive scholarship can't convince you I'm sure I couldn't.lfen

Coincidently I found this recent book just arrived in my library's new book section. I've just started to dip into it. Very interesting arguments with as much archeology as they can pack into it.lfen

And there are mistakes made by reporters everyday. The news is an approximation. If they had camera's on the scene it's can be better data than if not, but footage can be edited to make people say things they didn't say for example. Why would God choose such an unreliable way of communicating such important information to humanity? really, I just can't buy this of a being who is said to be capable of the laws of gravity and the creation of the universe. Such a being would have something that just functioned like gravity. Instead in the Bible we find only recognizable human fallibilities and psychology.And what if the evidence contradicts the hearsay? Even the eyewitness testimony. I recall reading about someone who died of headshot wounds to the head. His girlfriend was reported as saying it was suicide. There was some sort of mob involvement. He had three gunshot wounds to the head. Was it self inflicted? As my memory is so bad this story must remain an apocryphal example.However back to Finkelstein and Silberman's latest book. There are no ruins of the magnitude described in the Bible at the level of David and Solomon in Jerusalem. It was a small village then.So the eye witness testimony has grown with the telling. Just like the stories about King Arthur, or Davey Crockett. Eyewitness testimony tends to get retold and as it is handed down the generations it "improves" in the telling and incorporates blended material from other sources. There is no mystery about the ways this happen. It's well documented in many times and places.lfen