May I suggest another definition of 'Faith'?

In my definition, faith is a lack of the desire to measure and to judge objects as one does not understand himself as a separate subject. This in turn leads one to a certain detachment from conventional life, taking it not all too serious anymore.

It doesn't mean that one stops entirely to measure and to judge, but one stops in taking it entirely serious. When one has faith, he starts to see it more like a game.
So, as for me, its always quite a sure sign that one is lacking faith, when his ways are not playful but all serious. And that's why there is no faith in all the churches of the world, because nobody of them really religious people dares to laugh when facing the altar. That's what makes faith different from believe. That's why I consider scientists, that can not laugh into the face of their theories, taking it all seriously, as religious people. As well as atheists, that take their believe in the non-existence of god dead serious and thus regularly engage in zealous debate with the theists, which again are seen, quite undeservingly I think, as the archetype of the believer. Because the fact that the theists were the first to believe, before all the other '-ists' could join them, doesn't necessarily mean, that their belief is somehow more fundamental.

It's the laughing at idols in all their manifold forms that separates faith from belief. And that's why defining things is strictly speaking a lack of faith, above all when they are taken seriously by the definition maker. So when stretching things a little, we could say that 'Faith' and the Paradox', the 'Absurd', is one and the same thing.

Thus it is not all that surprising that faith and believe are confused all the time. Since, on the other hand, there is no sure sign for faith. When one is all playful and not at all serious, that's not a sure sign for faith too, because chance is that he's just a clown. Ever heard of the sad clown? Faith therefore is very difficult to discern in other people. And it's not possible at all to discern faith from belief by just knowing the surface of people. That's why it is so easy to pretend and put a great show on. That's why it is so commonly institutionalized into churches of all kinds, because it's a con that is so easily pulled of. Churches basically are a con act institutionalized. People go to church not because they are faithfull but on the contrary, because they lack faith and thus believe it's a serious and very important thing. Look at the churches and cathedrals. It is very important that they are superior to everything else, that's because it is such a serious thing.

As I see it, faith can only be noticed in people that are very close. And even then it is very difficult. And people are not static. But the good news is that it is much easier to discern faith, or the lack of it, in oneself than in others. Because if you are going to take an exam and as a result are very nervous and sweating blood, it's clearly because you are lacking faith and thus believe that the result of the exam really is no laughable matter.

If belief is the illness, then faith is the cure.

Groktruth, I really don't see the point in your wordiness. I mean besides the usual bickering about definitions.
What are you trying to do? Do you want to prove god? I consider your intellect is well enough to see that this can't be done.
So I'm really interested to know what your motivation is? Are you a retiree? Is it loneliness, boredom, self-validation, or what else could it be? I mean it must take you hours and hours to write all these things down. Why?

Groktruth wrote:I clarify my thinking by writing things down, and questions from others stimulate me to think of things that I find useful to remember later.

Well, I can understand that. It's the obvious reason. However, by writing thoughts down, are not thoughts also abstracted in the process and in so far 'made smaller than they are' and therefore, in a way, 'wrong'? I think, this is obvious too.

Groktruth wrote:Finally, in case this theology is true, many wonderful things have happened in my life for which I ought to thank God, and I should want to return the blessing. Theologically, these postings make His putative job as judge of the universe much easier.

So you think of yourself to be kind of 'His right hand'?

Groktruth wrote:Some people might try to get a lesser sentence worth the complaint, "How was I to know?" Now, if he is out there, He has an answer. But, mosr importantly, I do the things specified in the biblical materials and methods to "hear God speak." Then, when strange thoughts come to mind that meet my expectations of what God speaking would be like, i figure, to complete the experiment, I have to act on them. That "voice" (speaking figuatively) tells me to make these posts. The above are what comes to mind when I ask, as you did, "Why?"

And you write these posts due to the inspiration you've got or the 'voice of God in you'?

Groktruth wrote:Godd question! Thanks!

You're welcome. I think part of the understanding who we are is the honest questioning of our own actions.

Groktruth wrote: With this understanding, yes, I often believe myself to be seated at God's right hand, and in a conversation with Him, directed by His voice.

Well, I think that brings you very close to 'believing to be god'. I mean sitting right beside god, directly hearing and transmitting his voice...

On the other hand you say that you 'pull it off', 'experiment' and rely on 'mental manipulation' so you don't really believe that you are god (or the right hand of god) but just like the effect of it. Therefore, I'd say you are an actor and for one to be an actor he must deceive himself as well as others. So wouldn't you call your experiment to be of a self-delusional nature even if there is effects that feel very real?

Groktruth wrote:In researching the claims of biblical theology, one has to "believe" for the sake of testing.

Maybe. But still, all you can scientifically find out by this experiment or skill is what's it like to be an actor, because one cannot 'reenact' what is sometimes called the 'mystical experience' in so far as this experience is usually described as lacking the subject-object-distinction of the experiment and the experimenter. Therefore, don't you think that in your scientific experiment you mistake the map for the territory?

The method you speak of reminds me of chaos magic. Is this the case?

Well, in this case I think I do see the point in what you do.
Even though the method is quite unfamiliar to me in the practical sense, since the method that works in my case is rather a specific form of 'skepticism', which is kind of the opposite of chaos magic which in this respect could be also called 'believism' it seems.
Therefore, it is not entirely unthinkable for me that the result of these two methods, when consequently applied and perhaps precisely because they are polar opposites so to say, are different means to the same end.

Groktruth wrote: although the truth reached is Schopenhauer's third stage: "I knew that!"

Then why the lantern?

I see now what your motivation is. However, the only use of the lantern, such as you see it, is as a way to show others their weaknesses. That's a valid way to go I think. Nevertheless, I understand that you are not there yet, because you seem not to perceive the more obscure symbolism of the lantern that lies beyond the more obvious, which would show you that god has no weaknesses.

Groktruth wrote:I am glad that I have persuaded you that I see myself in a journey of discovery

You not only persuaded me, you also persuaded yourself I must remind you. That's quite an achievement I think

Groktruth wrote:Hope and trust are not as great as love, but are better than nothing.

I feel compelled to say that there is only love but I don't... really...
Since the common concept of 'love' is 'self-love' it has such a hollow ring to it.

Groktruth wrote:I am told that I am kinder, face to face.

I bet that this is so. Because of your ...ahm.. 'compassion' perhaps?