Why is faith a virtue ?

[McCulloch]

Why is faith a virtue?

Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing."
Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

According to the Christians, God created humans. According to science, humans have really big brains, relative to the expected brain size based on other species and body size. With these really big brains, we can assess information, evaluate options, pose difficult questions and collaborate on answers thereby combining the power of our brains.

But according to some Christians, on this site and elsewhere, God does not want humans to use our brains with regard to him. He wants humans to choose to believe in him without sufficient evidence to rationally conclude that he exists. In science, this kind of faith, acceptance of assertions as fact without supporting evidence, is not considered a virtue. Yet, in the area of religion it is good to have faith (so long as your faith is the correct faith).

Why ?

[Confused]

Dear Confused.

Thank you. I am just trying to be honest. I pray GOD will bless you.

By the way. Tokens what are they a measure of or what are they for?

Sam

I don't know. There is a place that explains it but I haven't read much about it. I just know that to me, it is a method that acknowledges when a person has made a logical conclusion that confused me or when they remain respectful of differing opinions.

[samuelbb7]

Dear Confused

Then just thank you again. We are talking on a number of other sites.

Live long and Prosper.

[Confused]

Dear Confused

Then just thank you again. We are talking on a number of other sites.

Live long and Prosper.

Well deserved

[The Duke of Vandals]

Pay not attention to the man behind the curtain!
-The Wizard of Oz

Why is faith a virtue?

I'm going to try to present this answer as gently as possible, but there are some who will likely find it insulting or demeaning. If you are one of those people, I offer my apologies. I haven't come to this site to troll.

That being said, faith is a virtue because it's integral to "selling" Christianity.

What is the most basic idea of Christianity?

Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected to allow everyone to be forgiven for their sins.

It's at the word "resurrected" that people will think, "woah. What do you mean resurrected? People don't just come back from the dead." It's here that the story of the disciples is offered. The disciples who allegedly gave their lives for what they believe in.

So, we don't have actual evidence of Christianity's most important claims. We have an emotionally charged tale of martyrdom. This is where the importance of faith comes in. In Christianity (and most religions) belief without evidence (faith) is elevated to to become a virtue.

If faith didn't hold such an exalted state, followers would be more inclined to look for actual evidence which would lead them away from Christianity.

[Easyrider]

What is the most basic idea of Christianity?

Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected to allow everyone to be forgiven for their sins.

It's at the word "resurrected" that people will think, "woah. What do you mean resurrected? People don't just come back from the dead." It's here that the story of the disciples is offered. The disciples who allegedly gave their lives for what they believe in. So, we don't have actual evidence of Christianity's most important claims.

According to you.

Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection — Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:

"it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29). (av1611.org)

We have an emotionally charged tale...

A claim made by an emotionally charged skeptic....

If faith didn't hold such an exalted state, followers would be more inclined to look for actual evidence which would lead them away from Christianity.

I've spent 12 years researching the evidence and have found it compelling. You've spent how long? Are you as great a legal mind on the rules of evidence as Simon Greenleaf?

[Goat]

What is the most basic idea of Christianity?

Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected to allow everyone to be forgiven for their sins.

It's at the word "resurrected" that people will think, "woah. What do you mean resurrected? People don't just come back from the dead." It's here that the story of the disciples is offered. The disciples who allegedly gave their lives for what they believe in. So, we don't have actual evidence of Christianity's most important claims.

According to you.

Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection — Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:

"it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29). (av1611.org)

We have an emotionally charged tale...

A claim made by an emotionally charged skeptic....

If faith didn't hold such an exalted state, followers would be more inclined to look for actual evidence which would lead them away from Christianity.

I've spent 12 years researching the evidence and have found it compelling. You've spent how long? Are you as great a legal mind on the rules of evidence as Simon Greenleaf?

The credibilty of Simon Greenleaf is hardly worthwhile. The criteria he used for evidence would not be acceptable in modern courts at all.

[Wyvern]

Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection — Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:

"it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29). (av1611.org)

I've spent 12 years researching the evidence and have found it compelling. You've spent how long? Are you as great a legal mind on the rules of evidence as Simon Greenleaf?

You've been researching for twelve years and you consider anything from av1611.org to be credible? The same site that claims that barcodes are leading us to the digital age of the beast. The same site that claims all rock music is evil and inspired by the devil, especially christian rock. The same site that even claims to know what hell is actually like.

Here is a site that posted the text and also has a number of refutations. www.chud.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79004 The biggest problem with Greenleafs' argument are the assumptions it makes. You have to remember the text was written approximately 170 years ago and standards of evidence were quite a bit different.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection — Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:

"it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29). (av1611.org)

Thank you for that useless appeal to authority. Please donlt spend so much time presenting fallacious arguments.

A claim made by an emotionally charged skeptic....

There really isn't a fallacy specifically for this sort of reply. The reason for that is no intellectual, scholar or postal service employee would expect to deal with the equivalent of "i know u are but whut am i?" beyond the third grade.

Honestly, I've presented in this thread and others how the Christian myth includes a healthy dose of guilt in place of evidence. Address the issue or do not, but don't waste our time with replies like the one above.

I've spent 12 years researching the evidence and have found it compelling.

I'm highly skeptical of this claim. I'd call it a lie, but I actually believe you think you've been looking at "evidence". What I'd wager is that you've done what most apologists do: you've immersed yourself in propaganda. You've read and spoken to only sources that "support" your argument and disregarded anything that's even mildly disagreed.

It's the exact same "reasoning" that told dubya there were WMD's in Iraq.

Also, you've helped me evidence why faith is made into a virtue: it breeds people like you who are immune to logic & evidence and place loyalty unquestioningly with your dogmatic propaganda.

[Easyrider]

Duke of Vandals wrote: Also, you've helped me evidence why faith is made into a virtue: it breeds people like you who are immune to logic & evidence and place loyalty unquestioningly with your dogmatic propaganda.

Why should I believe your follies? All you've done is advance a dozen or so specious, personal opinions based on squat. Where's the beef?

[IPOINTITOUT]

This is the true question. Can everyone be equal in their ability to have faith. Should the non belivers be sent to hell , because they just cant believe such an amazing story. Faith many times is the ability to believe things that cant possible be true. It appears to me that many people have selected faith. for instance these people surely wouldnt sit at home dying of a heart attack, and not call for an ambulance. I know they have in the past. But really. Faith is normally the belief in something, thats clearly not true. Because anything that is true can survive the checks and balances. Unfortunately, some have the ability to completely overlook common sense, if it disagrees with their faith. This notion has definately slowed down the progress of mankind.