Hm... not quite sure I understand your question. I believe the Bible confirms man's free will.

Yes, but how do you account for free will if every action can be or is assumed to be Divinely Managed?  Is it reasonable to think/believe/know that all of the thousands of actions involved in a Gospel being removed by an agent of a church (with political and socioeconomic motives) were manipulated by the Lord?

There's a lot of other question there to address, by the way... ;)

I am not sure i agree with your divisions within Christianity.

I certainly believe myself that the Bible is the Word of God.  I believe Jesus is the Word.  but i dont' read the bible as a "literal step by step follow these rules or you are doomed"

I can see that some parts are first hand accounts, some are stories, some are metaphors, some are poetry, some are ways of explaining the world, ......... 

i always worry when someone says  " i read the bible" or "i am a new Christian and am reading the bible"  I don't think the bible is easy to understand.  We can see on this one site how many different views there are.

God is sovereign. His plans cannot fail. He brings about that which he desires. One way he does so is through our own free will. The Bible confirms both God's predestination and our responsibility to choose. How these two things work together is not something which our human minds can fully grasp. We do not have the brainpower. We must accept that things are this way by faith. 

It is not intended to be "my" or the only division. It tends to be a common endpoint in discourse with Christians, where one person takes a statement literally and the other does not so there is no way to continue a conversation.  I find it fundamental and irresolvable.

I agree. As I recall Penguin's Guide to Living Religions states that as of 1988 there were 12 thousand identified Christian sects worldwide. When people can argue about the meaning of a specific statement or word (for example on what day the Sabbath is to be held, Seventh Day Adventists), it creates an opportunity for division, disagreement and separation.

I agree wholeheartedly and have often pointed out to friends that the GodMind of the infinite can account for every decision we might make at every choice-point in It's planning.

I also agree, but this means different things to people who take the Bible literally and those who do not.  I am not yet clear on your stance.

Hello twinkletoes.........God bless you.....

I agree with Jubliee, if we have the Faith to believe in a Divine God why would we not believe that the bible is a guide book full of Gods love, laws and principals...a lot of the bible history has been found..more then we know ...I believe by Faith that the bible is the Divine word of God ...A living God a Living word ...God goes through me and delivers His messages to me and gives me Love, Wisdom, Peace, Wisdom, Knowledge, Purpose, Security , Forgiveness, Mercy, Grace, Councel...He give all of these things to Pastors, Ministers ,Priest etc...I believe He also gave it too, prophets , apostle, teachers etc...literally well I guess that would also depend on the Holy Spirit upon us ....I believe in the Love, Peace, Wisdom , Knowledge etc that it teaches and yes I do take these literally , are you asking if I believe all the bible stories are real...I believe they are given to us to take from them what we can ...breaking them down into Faith, Belief, Wisdom , Knowledge, Miracles etc...and using the Holy Spirit to discern what we are learning ....

IJL:bg

I think that some of the Bible has indeed been divinely inspired, but so has a lot of other poetry and prose, as well as other works of art. What makes the Bible special to us Christians, though, is that it tells the history and mythology of our Christian faith.

So what do you do if He tells you through a message to you something that contradicts what the Bible says?

Do you condone the purchase of people?

2 When thou buyest a Hebrew servant — six years he doth serve, and in the seventh he goeth out as a freeman for nought;

3 if by himself he cometh in, by himself he goeth out; if he [is] owner of a wife, then his wife hath gone out with him;

Hello blessedtoes.....God bless you....

We are talking of the laws that were made for the people of that time...people own slaves because they were spoils of war....I do not believe in any kind of slavery...I believe ...we are all equal in Gods eyes....I would use the discernment of the Holy Spirit if God spoke to me....I would pray on what He has ask me and if it was a decision I could then not make I would consult with other Spiritual People of God and then make the decision based on all I the information I have acquired...

Having and acquiring slaves is not of this time and God would not ask me to do something that did not line up with His Will and Love for not only me but others...God is a God of Love first before anything else....I believe God is as modern as we are and that He dwells in all time and space....the past, the present and the future....amen and amen...

IJL:bg

this is pretty much my belief too... the bible is collection of writings discussing peoples experiences with god and with jesus.

i always cringe when people say that it is 'the word of god', though, because the only proof to back it up is, well, the bible.

saying that the bible is the word of god because it says so in the bible is just not all that logical.

Or we can simply think rationally based on what is observed and act on that.

We don't have to act on faith at all.  People who do act on faith are dangerous. They make irrational decisions.

LL&P

Spock

Greetings!

For me, the Bible is the word of God . . . it is filled with stories, mystery, poetry, history, letters, and gospels, that reveal and give me an understanding of God.  It is the book that tells the story that I live by.  It does not mean that I take everything literally when I read the Bible, but rather what I can learn from it that gives me the basis of my faith.  I can learn about God from reading other works of literature also.

There are others who for them the Bible is not the word of God . . . perhaps another book is their word of God . . . and is the book that reveals to them the story that they live by.

My guess is that most people have their understanding of who God is through something that was written or shown to them through a variety of writings - either on paper or through the life of another.

Hope, peace, joy, love . . .

So you live your life by the reading of a book? 

Spock says:

Or we can simply think rationally based on what is observed and act on that.

We don't have to act on faith at all.  People who do act on faith are dangerous. They make irrational decisions.

Well, I think that it depends on how people practice their faiths, but faith itself isn't dangerous. It's also a very fundamentalistic idea. That's why people keep talking about their faiths based on progressive consciousness, and try to reach a certain point here in this site...like refining their faiths?, at least, for me?, yes.

Beloved,

Would you direct your children to do something based on faith?

If you are willing to accept direction from a text based on faith, are you willing to do what somone else tells you to do if they are claiming to represent the voice of god?

If not then you set yourself up for a whole whack of internl conflicts.

LL&P

Spock

Faith isn't dangerous when it's entirely personal.  It's dangerous when you use it to influence others.

Atheisto, You're right.

But if we cannot get rid of the faith completely, it's better for us to refine the conventional mindset, isn't it?

Greetings!

Hey, Atheisto!

I believe I said that what I learn from reading the Bible, not taking everything I read in it literally, is part of the basis of my faith - as well as other literature read and learning from others.  The reading of a book, any book, is only a part of what directs how I live my life.

Hope, peace, joy, love . . .

But people are individuals and as Spockis has explained each persons interpretation of faith is thus entirely personal, this is why we have so many people arguing with each other over who is the better christian (which is very funny I might add).  This means that for ever saint there's a Charles Manson who individually think they are both divinely right.

You can't make everyone think the same way in matters where you only have interpretation of factless uncorroborated texts.  When you try to force everyone to believe one interpretation of a text you get Ayatollahs telling people to go and kill the infidels.  It's the loudest voice that appeals to the masses that is heard, not necessarily the reasonable, calm one.

Greetings!

Hi, spockis53!

My children are adults, so there isn't much I can do as far as direction in their lives .  When they were children in my care I did . . . "get up and get out of bed and start the day!, based on the faith that we live and move and have being.

Nope, I wouldn't do something someone else tells me to do claiming to be the voice of God - I wouldn't rely on anyone else to claim to hear the voice of God for me personally . . . I would have to "hear" it for myself - of which the hearing could take many forms, not just reading the Bible.

Hope, peace, joy, love . . .

Atheisto,

You pinpointed my dilemma.

Excellent generalizations there.  Way to contribute to this thread.

Why don't you contribute by explaining how the statement is a fallacy by giving us some examples perhaps?  I tend to agree with Spockis.  Acting wholy on faith gives rise to irrational behaviour at times, see Charles Manson...or even Hitler if you like. Hitler had faith in the superiority of the Arian race, so much so he sought to exterminate the jews.  Missionaries have faith that their religion is superior and so they seek to convert the "heathens", in the past this led to the annihilation of complete tribes of people and the near decimation of the Mayans.  In the present day this leads occasionally to the "blackmail" of impoverished people to accept the "good news" in return for aid.

OK, you have defined God. Now show us some evidence that God by this definition actually exists. Or are you satisfied with putting all of your faith into a complete speculation?

Atheisto,

You're right.

So? What's your point?

You just pointed out the problem, but you didn't mention any approach to try to solve it.

Do you want all religions to disapper? If it's possible, I'd be very happy too. Why do you think many people have been studyng/interpreting their own religions in different ways so far ? This movement is acted out not only by Christianity, but also some other religions. We call it a Progressive approach or the meeting is called an interfaith group. My point is that they try their best, at least.

I also wonder if we still need religion in the 21st century even if we have many scientific explanations, which we didn't have back then, but until we find a more understandable/provable theory/truth, it's inevitable for us to keep religion. Namely, it's necessary for us to develop our religions better way until then. Interpretations are a part of the process.

Or

Acting wholy on faith gives rise to rational behavior at times, see Mother Teresa ... or even Martin Luther King Jr. if you like. 

Along with faith, you can take almost anything and see the irrational or rational in it, n'est pas?

Hope, peace, joy, love . . .

Hi spockis and feedbag:

It all depends how one defines "faith."

If "faith" is regarded as a fixed doctrine that is absolutely true, then I would agree that acting on faith may indeed be dangerous.

If, however, "faith" is an experience of universal unity and at-one-ment—which it usually is at the purely experiential level—then I see acting directly from that experience as beneficial.

Faith, all too often, is regarded as doctrinal religion. What is frequently forgotten, however, is that virtually all religions are rooted in the experience of universal at-one-ment.

It seems that someone will throw this in to almost every thread at some point.  "Show us some evidence that God exists." Faith by its very nature is the belief in something not seen. Faith is very personal and individual. I could explain my personal experiences and why I beleive there is a God, but aside from my "mystical" experiences with God, there is no evidence. This, however, is not the issue here; not every thread is a debate on whether or not God exists.

We, as Christians, accept that we cannot provide evidence that God exists outside of our own experiences. Yet, we still beleive. This at it's very essence is faith. Faith is not dogma or propaganda, it is not blindly beleiving what someone tells us to, it is a personal belief and a journey as we experience more of God and begin to understand some of his/her character. To answer your question: We are satisfied in putting our faith into (what you call) a complete speculation because we have experienced God, or the mystical, or the "creator" or whatever we may call it.

The bible was inspired by the holy spirit. These men and women were given knowledge and revelation from the spirit of god. The bible is not just metaphors. for example: God is slow to anger but his wrath is great. thou should not lie, steal, kill, etc. These are not metaphors. there are lots of instuctions and benefits, which are promises from god in the bible. there are lots of very clear prophecies that are written in very clear terms as well as many stories that are not told in metaphors. Usually when you see symbols used in the bible. These symbols will be explained in the same passage. Example. Then I saw seven candle sticks. If you would continue to read, it would tell you what those candlesticks mean or symbolize. you can find much of this in the book of revelations. and the books of the prophets in the old testament. books like Jeremiah, Isiah, Ezekiel and so on. god left this word to be used as a map so to speak: in order to obtain salvation. God didn't just leave us hanging like that. Many people read the bible with such a negative energy. Looking for something that would disprove it's validity. Its not a book that one full of pride would understand. The bible says a scholar is but a fool when it comes to the word of god. Because they read it with a high mindedness and no humility. not searching with in earnest need of the word, instead; they think they can break some kind of code or logically make sense of its contents using man's limited intelligence. Mans logic is limited. The bible is a book of unseen things and the world to come which are all spiritual places and how to obtain the holy spirit in order to exist in such newness and perfection rightfully so.  When I first read the bible, it looked like Russian to me. But after I begain to pray for understanding, then the words seemed to be jumping off of the page. It was so clear. I begain to allow my imagination to visit those places in full techni color. Ever since then. I can get lost in reading and studing. I enjoy it very much...be blessed. go to google, click video, type in Megiddo I. Be sure to use a capital i indicating the number 1. This is the most intelligent, complete, political prophecy that I have ever seen. Its very well done. you will hear quotes from some of the most powerful people in the world. And you will not believe what they are talking about. when you play it, if it begins to freeze at times, allow it to stop and go for about 15 to 20 minutes giving it time to download. then slide it back to the begining and click play. It should run great after that. It starts in animation for about 20 minutes then it breaks into the real deal. mind blowing. Check out Megiddo II also. Lotta questions answered. Very intelligently done...Peace and much love

Without tackling the other issues in this post, my approach to divine "omnipotance" vs. free will would be that "God" exists outside of time. While our existence is linear, God (or the cosmos, spirit, etc...) simply is. Thus the outcomes of our "free will" decisions would be known to God. Were the thousands of actions involved in a Gospel being removed manipulated by God? I don't know...

People in certain institutions are also positive that their experiences are true even though no evidence exists.  Dawkins draws an allusion to this in his books.  What makes your experience different from these people?

I'm not sure what institutions you are referring to. Do you mean institutions like mental institutions?

I think he means institutions as in Churches, Religions, Academic societies, Boys and Girls clubs, neighbourhood watch...

An institution is anything that has been instituted.

In that case, I am one of those people, so I would say there is no difference between my experiences and theirs. I can only relate my experiences as I perceived them. I can't attribute any "truth" to them, but they can give me, if I allow them, more of an insight into the mystical/spiritual.

I think that is exactly the point.

A lack of biochemical imbalance or congenital structural deformity that alters normal sensory or perceptive function?

I love that you like the people you meet here, Athiesto, and I appreciate your contribution to the discussions - sincerely.  However I'm not clear on why you chose to post in this thread as it is a discussion between people who relate to the Bible as a guide about variations in how they do so.  Please don't challenge people off-topic just to raise a ruckus.

Atheisto's questions are very much on-topic.  The topic is, "How come your bible is the Word of God?"  Oher religions also claim to have the word of God, so (most of) Christianity is just one more in a long list of (mostly) dead religions who think their holy text is the work of god.  You accept this on faith, so you have no concrete reason to believe this, except Chritians apparently have some shared experience where many of you have experienced god, and that's why you believe.  That's swell, but I, and I assume Atheisto, are more inclined to believe the simpler explanation that you are all under the same delusion that is simply the result of wanting to experience god so badly, that you "do" experience god.

Hi Wonderingg:

I've been told often enough that mystical experiences could be psychoses.

"Yes, could be," I answered, "but, to normal people, supranormalcy and subnormalcy seem equally abnormal. Who can tell the difference between the two?"

Never having been clinically insane, I can't tell the difference. And I doubt that the clinically insane can.

Am I positively or negatively mad? I leave the verdict up to my fellow beings.

Most people say, "Hermann, you are positively mad!"

The Bible is not in and of itself the word of God.  It becomes for Christians the word of God by virtue of the fact that God speaks to us through the very human words of the Bible

Shalom

Mate

Go watch the movie F for Fake by Orson Wells for a meditation on this,

Inannawhimsey

You are making a lot of assumptions, especially as someone advocating reason and rationality.  I am a Christian Minister, but in a sect that acknowledges reincarnation and quotes the Bhagavad Gita.  I personally have been studying the world's major religions for more than twenty years and have read the Q'uran more times than the New Testament.  I think many spiritual and religious texts are the work of God, and that we all embody God, so if you were to write something meditated with positive intentions I might also see that as a work of God.  I am also a physician who was a physics undergrad so am no stranger to logic, the scientific method, or the need for evidence-based practices.

I realize you may not have directed your "yous" specifically at me, but again I think it noteworthy that you made a host of assumptions - that I view other religious traditions or texts as "less than," that my experience of God is shared with anyone else, or that I have a need for God.  If you want to have a rational discussion about my pathology we need to defiine terms first.  You also seem to make these assumptions about others here which I find ironic as the mainstay of our regular participants seem to me to have a liberal or non-traditional christianity. Not Fundyville.

I felt Atheisto's comments were off-topic because my question was directed towards people who have a relationship to the Bible as a spiritualized document: I am interested in hearing about how people (if I may make an assumption here) like Tonton have come to a point where they believed the book is literal.  To reduce that discussion to the same old "your faith in god is delusion" discourse is unhelpful to me, as it can be found in dozens of threads here.

I'd love for you and Atheisto to participate, just in way that relates specifically to the topic rather than challenging the fundamentals of faith-as-madness.  I am already pretty clear on his thinking there.

I didn't mean to shut anybody down, I was just expressing my preferences as a community member.

If God is Love and Love is a total state of confusion to the intellectual process ... is this like something out of the waters of Babylon? Where did the story first come from ... UR?

Now is this helpful: if you didn't learn something from the syn tax of the story? Isn't that divine ... a mind directed by both motivation and a thinking bit ... chits out of heaven like con fettis ... epi leptic  reactions to unknown powers that neither man nor beast can suppress when struck in full force (incident in space?). Have you ever been caught in the flood as spacey incident? Some personas never regain the thinking composure they never had since birth. Is that alien thought? Love's like that along the divine way!

Then the piscine event just lives some people very peeved ... pooling down the river and wondering what happened as if they didn't have a clue about the th' ought part ... Theo and wiz d'm. It is a dark cloud!

My journey into accepting the Bible was that, a journey.  I sprained both of my knees in high school and was in pain almost daily for almost seven  years.  Then in my twenties I met a Catholic priest who said he did lay on hands praying.  He asked if he could pray without with me.  I figured what the #$%#^ have I got to lose?  maybe some time.  He prayed with me for over an hour, during that time he spoke of promises of Jesus written in the Bible and spoke what I though was Latin (doesn't every priest know Latin?), later I learned about speaking in tongues.  The thing is while he was praying I experienced a vision/dream/delusion/whatever, but within a couple of days the pain was gone and never returned.  I decided to look into the whole Jesus thing.

I began to read the Bible, not knowing about all the arguments about literal, metaphor, blah, blah, I just read it.  Later I met some "radical Christians" who gave me some books, one of which was an apologetics one.  It discussed a lot of stuff from intellect about Christian faith.  I really bought into it and believed the Bible was literally true.  Later in Bible College I learned there are different ways to literally read the Bible.  Myself I am an historical literalist.  This means I search for the historical/grammatical stuff concerning the text I am reading.  I like the example of God being a mother hen who gathers her chicks under her wings.  This is obviously a metaphor, God is not a giant chicken.  This is an easy metaphor to identify, not all the Bible is so easy, especially where prophectic or apocraphyal methods are used.  These were real writing methods used in the time period, not just in the Bible.

Why I still choose to see it as historically lieteral is that it works it's way out in my life that way.  I hold to the doctrine of illumination, this means that Bible only becomes the word of God when it is illumined by the Holy Spirit.  You can't just pick up the Bible and read it and have it impact you, it is only through relationship with God that it makes sense and comes to life.  ((Note not saying the book comes to life, it is a book after all)).  This is why interpretations can vary greatly even amongst people who all hold the same preconceptions of Scripture.  I don't think God wants me off trying to explain and learn every doctirne of the Church today, so my examining them through the Bible is just going to be using it as a textbook, something they had us do in school.  I believe that what we truly gain from it is relative to where we are with God.  I still love theology and learning it, but I have to be willing to accept that my interpretations are subject to change depending on where I am with God at any given time.  It is a common thing to hear people say, I can read a passage over and over for years and God always seems to give me something new.

Yes too many Christians worship the book not the God.  I would say, they worship themselves and their own minds, interpretations.  You must give them some slack though, because this has usually been taught to them, by parents, teachers, pastors, etc.  "Spiritual abuse is the mistreatment of a person who is in need of help, support or greater spiritual empowerment, with the result of weakening, undermining or decreasing that person's spiritual empowerment." (The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse by Johnson and VanVonderen) and just like sexual and physical abuse it is carried on generationally.

Blessed Toes.  No one is raising a rucus.  I'm just asking how without a shred of evidence you can believe a flawed jumble of ancient writing is the inspired work of a divine entity/ guiding force.  Not only is the book self contradictory, containing quite a few innacuracies and so vaguely written that any interpretation cannot reasonably be challenged.

You seem an intelligent person.  Can you tell me why the bible is not a book written by simple people about some myth that was handed down through generations in much the same way that Homer's Iliad or some similar books were written.  If not, can you tell me why we shouldn't then take those books as the inspired works of gods?  Why should we not take every ancient text as the inspired work of a god/gods? There is as much evidence for any ancient text as there is for yours.

If you have no objective evidence that God, by your definition, exists then you cannot reasonably make the statement that this God exists, as if it is fact. Yet you do it anyway. That is the problem. You can say that you believe that this is how god is, but you can't say that it's a fact unless you can back up your claim with evidence that goes beyond personal experience.

Faith is about trust. Trust can be backed up with evidence. My faith in God, by my definition, is backed up by actual evidence. I can state that my idea of God actually exists, because I define God as the universe itself, which can be empirically demonstrated to exist just by opening your eyes. If you believe that God is something external to the unvierse itself, however, such as the creator of the universe, then you cannot make a fact claim because you have no evidence that anything outside of the universe exists.

No, faith is not dogma. Religion is dogma. It's an organization with rules and rituals that bring people together to share a common belief system. One does not need religion to have faith in something. Faith can extend beyond God, because faith merely means trust. You can put trust in personal experiences if you want, but not everyone finds that satisfactory, and certainly nobody will find your personal experience to be satisfactory for them. If you want to convince others that your belief is right, you need evidence that goes beyond personal experience.

Hi blessedtoes,

I don't know how a literalist would answer that question.

I know that I would like an example of the politically motivated changes you are talking about.

I know about the longer and shorter endings of Mark.  I don't know what that proves with regard to political shenanigans.

I know of other textual variations and large chunks of text which are omitted from some manuscripts or added to others.  I know of know book or portion of book which has been proven to have been editted politically.

I know that there is frequently such charges made and that the absence of proof for such change is lifted up as the proof positive that such change exists.  Arguments from silence are poor fare in the scholarly realm.

This does not prevent books or portions of books from having a political agenda.  All four gospels appear to have certain elements that they want lifted up and remembered.  Paul's writings may or may not lift up what any of the four thought was important.

Yes, I am aware of ecumenical councils which met to decide what should be included within the canon of scripture.  While it is fair to say that such councils were politically charged it is probably important to realize the same can be said for every meeting of every court of The United Church of Canada since organic union.

If we really want to stoop to the level where politics is equated with evil then The United Church of Canada, which has never made a decision in a political vaccuum of somekind or other, has never listened to the Spirit of God but rather the political spirit of the moment.  The same could be said of any other institutionalized Church.

Casting scripture into the either/or of the metaphor-literal spectrum fails to recognize that scripture can be both/and (though not usually both in the same place at the same time).  Friend panentheist has pointed out on occasion that the loudest opponents of literal fundamentalism are advocates of fact fundamentalism.  They make the same mistake from a different angle.

The United Church of Canada, in an effort to avoid both extreme points because neither is an actual help to understanding the text does not recieve the Bible as "the" Word of God but rather it recieves the Bible as containing God's word.  Such a nuance allows us to look at the sacred writings of other faiths and to recognize God's voice speaking within them as well.

Grace and peace to you.

John

killer_rabbit79,

I understand your point and would, on many levels, agree with you. My personal experiences are not enough for someone else to intellectually decide that God exists or that he doesn't. My point above was that this thread is not about the existence of God, rather it is about discussing the scriptures among those of us who do believe that He exists. If you can add to that discussion, then I would welcome it.

To touch on some of your other points (since we are in fact discussing the existence of God and faith) I would suggest the following: I had a job for quite a while working with the homeless and working poor. One of the most important policies that we had was that we would always extend trust to the people we worked with. In effect, we had faith in them. We would allow them to enter our offices unaccompanied, or the storeroom where we kept food and gifts that we would give out at Christmas. Some of the staff didn't understand this policy as some of the people we served were well known to be addicts and thieves. We put our faith in them regardless, although we had no evidence that faith was warranted. Sometimes we had things stolen, but most of the time these individuals respected us for trusting them when most, if not all, the people in their lives didn't trust or respect them. By your definition of faith (basically trust, backed up with evidence) our faith in these individuals was faulty. Evidence is not needed for faith to operate, in fact, quite the opposite. Faith, in my opinion, is something extended despite the lack of evidence.

In terms of the existence of God, I have put my faith in Him and that He does indeed exist. (Again, I state this as fact, but as fact for me. I am not projecting this on to you) As you say, this is not enough for anyone else, but it is enough for me. I do enjoy discussing it, however, no argument from anyone else is enough for me to withdraw my faith in Him either. Although it is hard to accept for many, trying to convince someone who believes in God that God doesn't exist due to lack of evidence is more ridiculous than my belief that He does. There is no evidence to disprove God either, so why can't the beliefs of those of us who agree God exists be allowed by athiests and pseudo-athiests? If the existence of God cannot be proven nor disproven, we all have to make a choice as to which side of the fence we will choose.

I understand that, but it seems pointless to me to have a discussion about something that may not even exist. I think this needs to be taken one step at a time, and the problem that I find with theology is that many theologians work under the assumption that their definition of God is right, but without first demonstrating its existence. Many philosophers have made this mistake, like Plato when he wrote the Phaedo, and Descartes when he wrote the Meditations.

You're right about faith not requiring evidence, but that doesn't mean that faith can't be backed by evidence. When you put faith into those people, many times you were proven right to do so, but you did end up letting in those who stole from you. Apply this to a person's belief system, where if they do not believe evidence is required to have faith, they may have a lot of beliefs that turn out to be true, but they will be susceptible to believing in things that are false as well. There is no screening process. If one is to have a standard of evidence, one can be much more secure in their belief that they are believing in what is right; their faith is justified and therefore much stronger. If you had a similar screening process for those homeless people, you would be much better at weeding out those who would steal, and would have much fewer instances of the organization being victomized.

Of course, the difference here is that your application involves humans, so I can understand why the organization would want to exercise a blinder form of faith, because you wouldn't want to unintentionally weed out people who were actually in need because they seemed like they were thieves. However, when we are talking about scientific and philosophical theories, we can use a higher standard for faith because you can't treat a theory inhumanely. Also, look at the difference in consequence when it comes to being wrong in each situation. If you are wrong about one of these homeless people, some food gets stolen but when a theory is wrong then any other theories that rely on this theory will also be wrong, so they will all have to be rewritten, which can take a lot of work and cause a lot of problems within the scientific community.

That is OK, but I think if one wants to have an objective discussion of the nature of God, then one should be willing to change their definition of God to be consistent with the objective evidence.

If there is no evidence either way then one would be best to be an atheist because atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of God and a lack of belief in the nonexistence of God as well. Atheists believe that because there is no evidence either way that there is no point in discussing it. Theism and antitheism are problematic in this case because there is no evidence to suggest that God exists as fact or that God does not exist as fact.

Also, what is a pseudo-atheist? I have never heard this term before.

That is not reasonable. The reasonable thing is to stay on the fence because that is where the evidence leads us. If a scientist comes up with a new theory, we don't have one camp of believers and a camp of disbelievers that argue all day long. They all will objectively test the theory and once the evidence piles up, the side to take will usually become clear. However, if evidence remains inconclusive, or if we still haven't discovered a way to find evidence, then scientists will refrain from putting faith into the theory, but at the same time will not put faith into discounting it. A good example of this is String Theory, which has mathematically been demonstrated but as of yet there haven't been any experiments done that have supported it, so scientists do not accept it but at the same time to not discount it. They believe that it could be true but that we still need to test it before we can know for sure. This is where any theories of God should be as well.

Unfortunately or fortunately any discussion of the existence of God or non existence of God is a total waste of time.  Theology is not in the perview of science.  It is simply beyond science.

The reality of God is a personal subjective experience.  Love happens to be in the same boat and there is no scientific way to prove or disprove love.  One can observe the actions of those in love and so conclude.  The same holds true for a religious faith.  One can observe the actions of the faithful.  Science is great at dealing with the physical world but is not suited to the study of the spritual world.

For me personally I have no problem whatsoever with the reality of God.  I don't need so called scientific proof as evidence.  I've seen what such faith can do for people.  One could argue that the same effect could be achieved another way.  That may be so.  One problem is that science has absolutely nothing to offer for those who mourn or those who suffer.  I don't see any atheist organizations running soup kitchens etc.  There may be atheists involved but that is as in faith a personal choice.

What would science have to offer the mourners at the Basillica in St. Johns NFLD?  The helicopter failed and so those people are plain simple dead?  Not much help in the emotional sphere.  Perhaps hand out some valiums?  Wonderful.

Any discussion of the existence or non-existence of God is a total waste of time.  I simply won't go there.

Shalom

Mate