12.11.06
why are christians so doubtful?
A man sent me an email today. He asked me beautiful, wonderful, questions. Though I won’t share this individual’s identity, I will share with you some of his questions.
What this gentleman basically asked me today was this:
It seems like you have examined and rejected a lot of the stereotypical assumptions about what it means to be a Christian. I like that. Me too. But I’m wondering whether and how much you considered whether God even exists in the first place, whether God is somehow personal - that is, cares about my life, and what God requires I believe, both about God and about Jesus.
Are these issues you accept as a given? Are they issues you wrestle with sometimes? Often? Assuming you have wresteled with these questions, what road did you travel to resolve them, or did you never resolve them?
Whew. Heavy stuff, to be sure. Yet, I think these are important questions. Questions that I, as the writer of these questions seems to assume, have indeed spent some significant time ruminating upon. What I’m about to present is not the “badchristian.com” prescribed answers to any of these questions. Rather, I’m going to tell you something of a narrative about how I ended up thinking the way I do (if you cared) and why asking these questions is vital to a strong Christian faith.
But I’m wondering whether and how much you considered whether God even exists in the first place, whether God is somehow personal - that is, cares about my life, and what God requires I believe, both about God and about Jesus.
Are these issues you accept as a given?
Great question. Is God personal? Does she/he care about me? What does God require that I believe about God and Jesus? Frankly, like most people do, I took the easy road on most of these questions through the majority of my admittedly immature Christian walk. The short answers were these: Is God personal? Yes. Does God care about me? Yes. What does God require that I believe about God and Jesus? That God exists, Jesus is God’s son, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried, and on the third day was resurrected and now sitteth on the right hand of God the father from there he shall judge the living and the dead… What a mouthful!
And then, the most important question of all the questions asked by my emailing friend: Are these issues you accept as a given? My answer to this question, as was the case (and perhaps is the case for many) was a triumphant and emphatic “Yes!”
Largely, my answers to the first set of questions haven’t really changed. I still believe that God is a personal relational God who cares about people and desires interaction with those people. I still believe that God cares deeply about me. I’m a little fuzzy about what God requires of me with regard to my intellectual assent to a particular demographic of theological abstracts, but I personally believe that God exists (as obviated by my answers to the first two questions), that Jesus is God’s son who was crucified, died, was buried, and ressurected and now lives. I believe that.
What’s changed? I no longer can answer the “Are these issues you accept as a given?” affirmatively. In fact, just as emphatically and triumphantly as I would’ve answered “Yes!” in the past, I’d have to answer “no” now. My answer to this question leads rather naturally into a discussion of the emailers second set of questions:
Are they issues you wrestle with sometimes? Often? Assuming you have wresteled with these questions, what road did you travel to resolve them, or did you never resolve them?
These are issues that I wrestle with ALL the time. Often would be an understatement. I find these issues to be consuming, and tiring, and sometimes frustrating.
What road did I travel to resolve these issues? Well, although I have an answer, a belief, I can’t say for sure that they’re completely resolved. Although, as I said before, I do have faith in a certain sub-set of historical facts that seem to point to the existence of a personal, involved, and demanding God. The first, and much less messy, answer to the “what road did I travel” question is that I read, a lot. But, in order to get to a place where that reading would do me any good, I had to be willing to put my faith to the test. More on that later.
What did I read? A pretty seminal (again, please pardon the sex biased language) and faith changing book was a book I’ve mentioned here before co-authored by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright called (I believe) The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions. I read this book with an open mind, and probably for the first time in my life I was convinced of a bodily resurrection.
Now, before reading the book (and subsequently a couple of N.T. Wright’s other pieces such as the one found here, and others in this N.T. Wright repository) I did “believe” in a bodily ressurection. Or, maybe it would be more accurate to say that I would’ve verbally casted my vote for a bodily ressurection of Christ given that that’s what they told me in Sunday School. Wright’s arguments regarding the bodily ressurrection (and more importantly, what a bodily ressurrection means for 1st and 21st century Christians) gave me much more confidence than the flimsy 8th grade bible-class arguments I was previously armed with.
That’s the road I’ve travelled to get to where I’m at. Did I resolve these issues? Depends how you define resolve. Do I have something that I can verbally assent to that I agree with in my heart? Yes. Given the fact that I had to have the openest of minds, given that I had to really let go of my beliefs about God, in order to arrive at any REAL belief, I’d have to say that I haven’t really resolved anything; at least not in the sense that I could quit wrestling with the topic of “Is God real, Does God want to deal with a piddly little human like me, and What does God want me to believe about Jesus?” So, in that sense, I never resolved the issue.
A few paragraphs ago, I made one of those “more on that later” statements. Well, now’s the time to pick up the “more on that later thread.” I feel like sometimes as Christians–and I include myself in that number–we get the eensy-weensy-est bit antsy about the “are these issues accepted as a given” issue. I can count on less than one hand how many times I’ve heard a faith leader tell me that I should be willing to throw all my beliefs about God out the window and hold them up to a test of the evidence.
This leads to my title question: “Why are Christians so doubtful?” Now, I can only speak from my own experience. And, my experience could well be unique. However, it seems to me that people of faith are pretty reticent to put that faith to the test. In science, we talk about Popper and falsifiability. If we’re to believe a theory is true, it should be submitted to a test which could ostensibly find that theory to be wanting. Junk science happens when we “test” theories by subjecting them to conditions that can only result in evidence supporting our preconcieved theory, and then we proclaim that this theory is true.
It seems to me that junk faith operates along the same lines. If we’re to believe that faith is true, it should be submitted to a test which could ostensibly find that faith to be wanting. Christians, sometimes, seem to be doubtful that their faith can really support rigorous inquiry. I know it makes me bristle every time I think that in order to grow in my faith that I might need to loosen my grip on the parts of faith I’ve been trained to grip onto so tightly. That’s not a particularly comfortable feeling.
However, if we ever want to create a living growing real faith, I think that’s just what we need to do. If we really believe in faith, we need to subject it to intellectually rigorous questioning. Anything less reveals the truth: That what we have and call faith is really an empty, shallow reflection of faith. A faith so weak, we don’t really trust it.
Is my faith perfect? Far from it, it’s weak; some parts of my faith are, I’m sure, empty, shallow reflections of a true living faith. I hope that over time, prayer, reflection, and study that I’m able to strengthen my faith accordingly. Probably the first step in the process is realizing the truth in the wise words of Wayne Campbell:
“I say hurl. If you blow chunks and she comes back, she’s yours. But if you spew and she bolts, then it was never meant to be.”
See? Falsifiability.
A fellow bad Christian said,
December 11, 2006 at 10:18 pm
I am constantly consumed by ALL of this! But I used to be even more so. I chose to leave my church because I felt like a failed Christian since my beliefs were so messy and I was constantly questioning. And while I am still consumed, I have decided that it is ok for me to have so many less answers than I thought I needed to have as a Christian. This allows me to enjoy God and the life He created now that I have left the neat little box I once believed I needed to reside in. I am spending less time worrying about the hows and whys and ifs and what’s a sin and who’s sinning and am I going to Hell if I don’t believe a certain way. I’m a little less exhausted by faith now.
Recovering said,
December 11, 2006 at 10:38 pm
Nice post. Thanks for the thoughts. I agree with the idea that faith tested is faith strengthened…What’s really interesting is that it seems like the Scriptures say that faith can’t be summoned up on our own - that it is a gift from God. So we are to ask for faith…and that is scary. Sometimes very scary.
MMM said,
December 12, 2006 at 9:15 am
wow. i think i need to read this one a few times.
great stuff.
Pither said,
December 12, 2006 at 10:45 am
Thanks for the quick and yet still well-reasoned reply, Brandon.
It seems like while you say you wrestle with these issues all the time, you continue to come down on the side of the traditional thestic Christian theology. I find that interesting, and yet difficult to replicate.
For me, I find myself continually wanting to know what motivates theists (even very liberal/progressive ones like you) to actually believe. Do you believe you have convincing evidence for God’s existence? Do you believe God answers prayer? How do you dismiss the atheist’s arguments that there is no evidence for either? Or do you just admit that you might be deluded and go on believing anyhow because you find it comforting? How do you separate the reasons you have for believing from the reasons fundamentalists that you poke fun of have for holding their beliefs, even the ones you debunk? How do you dismiss the reasons Muslims and Mormons and Scientologists have for believing their tenets without applying the same rigors to your own beliefs? After all, the Muslims claim to get their prayers answered, and they claim that their book is written by God, too. Yet I (and I presume you) have dismissed this notion our whole lives.
When I finally started to do this in all honesty, I found that in the same way I had always thought the fundametalist, the Muslim, the Mormon, and the Scientologist are deluding themselves into belief, I finally realized I was, too. Now I can no longer muster a convincing enough argument to believe. It’s like the bubble has been burst.
So what I’m left with now is trying to honor the traditions of my culture and Christian upbringing while still balancing that against self-delusion and belief without evidence or for comfort’s sake alone. I like the idea of a church community, but I find the absolutizing of the doctrines to be stifling.
So what I’m hoping is to continue to lurk here and comment when I can, not to try and convince or debunk, but to try to understand - along with people like you and your readers who are willing to listen to honest questions without dispensing pat answers.
Pither said,
December 12, 2006 at 11:27 am
Oh and I took the World View Weekend quiz and scored an abysmal 0. Kinda fun.
Brandon said,
December 12, 2006 at 11:40 am
Pither, thanks for the reply!
You ask more great questions again. For example, “Do you believe you have convincing evidence for God’s existence?” No, I don’t. I have only evidence that convinces and speaks to me. “Do I believe God answers prayer?” Somehow, I do. How? No clue.
“How do I dismiss others’ competing arguments about God?” I can’t, at least not in every case. Some arguments seem (both to me and more learned folks) to just be stupid, others, frankly, just can’t be disproven. See, this is where my analogy of faith and science breaks down. Falsifiability is a principle of what makes a good scientific theory. However, it’s not the case that falsifiability makes good faith systems. Faith systems in most every case weren’t designed with the goal of being falsifiable. As such, there are few things they can’t explain away.
Does this make one just as good as the other? Maybe. I guess that means I’m left with believing based on the evidence I find convincing…for me that’s the bodily ressurrection of Christ. Others find other things convincing.
Although I’m not sure that it makes me deluded to choose to believe one of several unfalsifiable faith systems for which there is little counter-evidence that the system itself cannot explain, I would have to say that I believe because it gives me comfort–in a sense. I’m not sure about the causal order there: do I believe because it gives me comfort or do I have comfort because I believe? I just can’t answer that with any clarity.
I separate my beliefs from the fundies like this: I know I’ve probably got several houses of cards stacked up that make my faith more than it ought to be. When I find those flimsy sub-cultural vestiges, I try to tear them down, to deconstruct. I (doubtless) still have lots to find. However, I feel that the fundies are trying to build a belief system on a flimsy legal/paternal - istic foundation of sand. The fundies hold these sub-cultural truisms to be foundational to the faith and have no desire to look beneath these beliefs. I’m willing to do so, although imperfectly.
I’m not entirely comfortable with that last paragraph because it’s the sort of writing that can be easily read through in order to find instances of my own hypocrisy. I’m a hypocrite, I’ll save any fundies the time of finding instances of this hypocrisy.
I don’t know if I have a good answer to this. Even if I did, I think it’d be paternalistic and overbearing to share it. I think the bottom line is either you believe or you don’t. The question I ask myself in the times of most doubt is this: “Even if there isn’t a God, is it worth searching for him/her?”
My answer is yes.
I don’t know if this helps you or not, Pither. It’s what works for me. It sounds to me like you’re frustrated about the state of your belief. If you’re looking for the “silver bullet” argument for the Christian faith, I don’t think you’ll ever find it. In my opinion, every argument man can dream up can be convincingly counter-argued, debunked, and shown to be wanting.
I guess the best advice I can give is to search for God if you like. Not that you asked for advice, and not that you don’t already have a better answer to your own dilemma, and not that it isn’t a pat answer, but if you wanted advice, I think it’s the best I can muster.
I’m glad you’ll be around here sharing comments. Your voice is one I think I will learn a lot from!
Steve C said,
December 12, 2006 at 12:14 pm
Brandon… great writing as always. I too need to read this a couple of more times. But that won’t stop me from commenting here.
I am on a bit of a deconstruction currently in my own belief system. Throwing it all out the window at times to consider the feasability of faith. I realize that much of what I have believed is because I have been afraid to confront the fears of losing something that has been a sort of crutch for me over the years.
I understand in the traditionalist sense what faith means… yet I also understand that if applied to so many other things, the faith I have had in God is suspect… and has been tied to so many things I believe about the world. Not sure if I can put that into the correct framework of words at the moment. Right now, I am thinking that the language of faith, belief, trust, etc… should be examined. How do we use these words and what do they mean? We can’t just throw them out there as the “get out of reason free card”.
Just recently, in an email dialogue with one of my readers over at SCP, as we were discussing things… this person wrote me and witnessed to me in the very fundamentalist, traditional way. And I had to laugh… and pat myself on the back. It felt liberating to know in a sense that I was seen as a pagan.
Pither said,
December 12, 2006 at 1:05 pm
I like the idea of recontextualizing the language. And I have heard and read of others doing that, too. Not just “faith” and “belief”, but “God” and “son of God” as well. That works well for me in my own mind.
My greatest struggle right now lies not in making sense of my own beliefs and “faith”, since I enjoy thinking freely and deconstructing, but rather in finding a community that fosters questions without either gasping at the heresy or else throwing the baby out with the bathwater. One place I have found that I like is http://www.christ-community.net .
breidden said,
December 12, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Jesus said “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven……I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit. Do not marvel that I said you must be born again. The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Maria said,
December 12, 2006 at 6:07 pm
I love this post. I’m just going to say it. These are things I’ve been talking with people about and questioning and actually feeling more alive and more connected to God personally in the questioning. As if he’s somehow saying - hey - now we’re at least in conversation, what a great step.
And just because I’m feeling obstinate today - breidden it’s arguments like yours that make me want to run from the church as quickly as possible. Seriously what does that even mean - and why did you choose to put that argument up? I’m happy to discuss things. Jesus also said “Love your neighbor as yourself” and bunches of other stuff. When I’m questioning the existence of God quoting Jesus doesn’t mean a lot. If I’m going to be honest about things. Accepting Jesus’ words just because they’re there isn’t enough for me. There I said it. That’s why I’m a bad christian.
As for “pot shots” here’s one of my favorite Jesus parodies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuD-pt8babg
Steve C said,
December 13, 2006 at 1:14 am
Maria…. what you said was thoughtful and reflective… and since I am in a pissy mood tonight I am going to reiterate what you said in a less than constructive way….
BEIRDDEN…. fuck off. You ignorant prick. What the hell does scripture spouting add to this conversation that is full of honesty? You are what I call a “scripture spouter”. You are one of those that states: “It doesn’t matter what the question is, Jesus is the answer?”
Well… my response to that is “fuck you”!
You are a pretentious, arrogant little prick that has added absolutely nothing to this conversation. Like Maria I wonder… what the hell do you mean?
Yeah the wind blows where it wishes… and you blow as well… you are full of hot air.
For the man or woman who has lost a loved one to cancer, for the person whose spouse has left them for another person, for the one who feels lonely and afraid of the future…. for the one who doubts everything and doesn’t seem to believe anything they have been taught… what comfort were your words….
Abso-fuckin-lutely-ZERO!
Steven Carr said,
December 13, 2006 at 2:15 am
Many early converts to Jesus-worship scoffed at the idea that God would choose to raise a corpse.
Paul writes to them in 1 Corinthians 15, in terms which imply that he knew the scoffers accepted that God made Adam from deaTd matter, so they clearly believed God could make dead matter live.
But these early Jesus-worshippers clearly believed God would not choose to raise a corpse from the dust of the ground that it dissolves into.
Paul assauges their doubts by telling them that they too would have the same sort of resurrection as the divine being they believed had been resurrected.
Paul writes ‘The first Adam became a created being, the last Adam a life-giving spirit’.
The typology clearly implies that having shared the nature of the first Adam (and received what Paul calls a body of death in Romans 7), we will share the nature of the second Adam and become a spirit (or a body made of spirit)
There is nore at http://stevencarrwork.blogspot.com/2006/12/resurrection-of-jesus.html
Wright, of course, twists 1 Corinthians 15 so that when Paul writes ‘Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God’, Wright denudes this of any reference to flesh and blood.
And when Paul writes ‘the last Adam became a life-giving spirit’, Wright just ignores the typology, and tries to imply that Jesus was raised by a life-giving spirit.
timmer k. said,
December 13, 2006 at 9:34 am
Steve–
All things being equal, what are you hoping to gain by berating someone for their comments? Forget faith, forget Jesus, forget God in this conversation. You’re just being unkind…but you seem to think it’s justifiable.
Why is it justifiable? Perhaps you have (like MANY of us here) grown tired of the intellectual imperialism that holds sway in many of our churches. That, my friend, is understandable. One of the things I love about Brandon’s blog is it is a place for those of us moving up and out to process. But is it really helpful or constructive to reply in the manner you did?
It’s ironic, really. What you’re doing is imposing your own kind of intellectual imperialism. The, “I used to believe all that shit that YOU currently believe and I am now better for not believing it. THEREFORE, I’m better than you because I’ve grown up and you haven’t.” It’s the same kind of tactics that we’ve all grown to loathe about the church only in reverse. It’s all a power play.
Steve, I could care less if you want to be bitter and feel justified in doing so. That’s you’re right. But don’t pretend that you have special rights to be unkind. Many who frequent Brandon’s blog have found themselves in a bit of church related quagmire. Since you’re there too, how about not killing the civilians?
Steve C said,
December 13, 2006 at 10:39 am
TImmer:
The, “I used to believe all that shit that YOU currently believe and I am now better for not believing it. THEREFORE, I’m better than you because I’ve grown up and you haven’t.”
Uhhhhh… where did I say that? Show me. You are reading WAAAAAAAY between the lines. But yeah now that you mention it… I think I am better than a “Pharisee-like” scripture spouter like “whats-his-name” for not believing his bullshit. Any day.
One of the things I love about Brandon’s blog is it is a place for those of us moving up and out to process. But is it really helpful or constructive to reply in the manner you did?
I love Brandon’s blog too. And my little slice of the internet is also a place for people moving through on this journey from the church. But is it really helpful or constructive to reply like I did? I don’t know… for Pharisees like “what’s his name” I don’t think there is any constructive way to reply. Maria took one path… and I took another. Do I normally choose this manner or tact… NO. But being nice rarely (if ever) has gotten me anywhere either when it comes to pharisees. Once in a while I just want to pop them in the mouth.
Steve, I could care less if you want to be bitter and feel justified in doing so… But don’t pretend that you have special rights to be unkind.
I have the right to say whatever I want, however I want. Just like the pharisee did up above. Just like you now in your “Dr. Phil” tone. I don’t think I was being unkind… I was being honest. He was being a prick. He does need to “fuck off”. He wasn’t being anymore constructive or “kind” by spouting scripture than I was in my response. His response and bible quotes were as much as a “fuck you” to statements on this blog as anything else. What’s the difference? The language I chose? Is being condescending as he was any less “kind”?
As far as “killing the civilians”…. church people and religion have killed (literally) more people than anyone or anything else in the world. It’s killing people today - physically and emotionally. In an emotional sense of the word, people like “whats-his-name” kill people with what he does or did. Instead of showing real concern or love or willingness to dialogue… he patronizes. Trust me… guys like him (her - why do I assume it’s a male - sorry about that) will not be hurt by what I said. They will be encouraged… because they are “suffering” for the cause of Christ. If he/she is hurt by what I said… then good… because maybe then I will know they have a pulse, some emotions, some genuine character that is able to relate to the rest of the world and to people in general. Rather than the “all you need is Jesus” shit that you get from idiots like them in the church.
I have often said about people like “whats-their-name”… that sometimes I just want to walk up and pop them in the back of the head. Sometimes they need that. And anyone that knows me, has been around my blog, or listened to my podcast knows…. I am an emotional, passionate person. I love people… but I am tired of stupid church people… seriously tired of them.
Pither said,
December 13, 2006 at 10:50 am
I understand Steve’s frustration. But I wonder if there might be more to it than that just frustration. I’m thinking about a “the lady doth protest too much” kind of thing. The liberal/progressive stance is a slippery one. It sometimes feels like we need to overstate the inanity of the fundamentalist position in order to keep from sliding that way.
This was in part what I was getting at yesterday. I find it odd and more than ironic that we dismiss (albeit humbly as Brandon did) the atheist’s claim that our belief in the supernatural (answered prayer, miracles, etc.) is delusional, yet in a sense when we do we find ourselves aligned with nutcases like Breidden. To be fair, maybe we don’t dismiss the atheist’s challenge so much as we cling to our beliefs despite the challenge. And we call that “faith” and consider it a good thing to preserve. But when I reflect on this honestly, it ends up motivating me to more seriously consider the atheist/critical position. After all, if Breidden et al are clearly delusional about so much stuff, why on earth would I trust them when they make claims of the supernatural? I mean, maybe the atheist is right and our “faith” is just our clinging to the vestiges of Breidden-like delusion.
Steve C said,
December 13, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Pither…. I agree with you.
As I moved away from a fundamentalist view a few years back, I began to walk this “progressive” or “moderate” line of Christianity.
For example… even though the Bible has some clear statements regarding homosexuality, I would look for a textual criticism of the Scriptures to justify my loved ones who were homosexuals, yet also claimed to be Christians. It was the same tact taken by Christians in the 70’s and 80’s as the divorce rate climbed in the churches. Jesus speaks directly to that issue in the NT and yet as a church, we became more open arms to those struggling through divorce. My feeling is that we pick and choose from the Bible depending on what stance we want to take. I know I have in the past.
And that moderate viewpoint tried to hold onto the Bible loosely with one hand. That type of moderate viewpoint differentiates between the “God of Jesus” and the “God of the OT”. I tended to emphasize the parts of the Bible that support the God I like (Grace) and de-emphasize or explain away the parts of the God I don’t like (slavery, ethnic cleansing, etc).
There are fundamentalists that will state emphatically that you must believe the Bible to be the inerrant, infallible word of God on all counts or don’t believe any of it at all. There are the liberal/moderates that see that as an absurdity. However, they choose which parts to be “fundamental” about over others. For example, I became fundamental about grace. And I have read some here online that take that idea and embrace the universalist approach, and they use the NT to support the idea that Jesus died for all and that all people are going to heaven. Personally, I don’t see that.
At least fundamentalists believe they are right and everyone else that doesn’t believe like them is going to hell. I almost envy that mindset. It certainly makes things a hell of a lot simpler. But since I am not willing nor can wrap my brain around that type of belief system. So, as the original post states, I doubt. And in this doubt, I do want to cling to faith. Yet what I have discovered is that “faith” may be a lot of things… but it is not certainty.
Pither said,
December 13, 2006 at 1:04 pm
For me faith is not about the amount of confidence I have in the veracity of doctrines. If it turns out Jesus is not the actual son of God, but is so metaphorically, that’s fine enough for me. If some day a bag of bones is found in Jerusalem and is somehow proven to be the bones of Jesus, and casting serious doubt on the physical resurrection of Jesus, that’s fine enough for me. If it turns out God is not personal and does not answer my prayers, that’s fine enough for me. My faith is not defined by my belief or disbelief in such things. Metaphors are sufficient for me. Faith to me is more the commitment I feel to keep struggling to find what is good. I don’t need the Bible to be the word of God to achieve that. It sounds like not a very Christian faith to some people, but oh well. That’s what faith I happen to have. I’m much more interested in what behaviors a person’s faith compels them to than in what truth claims they believe.
For so many fundamentalists, faith is defined by a laundry list of beliefs, many of those flying in the face of what science is discovering. But I would warn people that if their faith is contingent upon the earth being 6000 years old, or even flat for that matter, then their faith is doomed to shatter or to become pure delusion. I also think that even for us progressives, if our faith is contingent upon God being like he’s described in the Bible (even in the New Testament) or in God’s “having a plan for our lives” or answering our prayers, we might be heading for the same brick wall.
Maria said,
December 13, 2006 at 2:36 pm
The way that works to keep me sane is this (with a caveat that this is just how I, Maria, look at faith): Based on my experience and some borrowed experience I truly believe that there is a good being that is somehow working to guide the world as I see it. Since I haven’t physically met this being yet I’m left to search. So far in my searching there’s something about the Christian God of Love and Grace that helps me understand the world around me. I’m going to keep checking it out and see what happens. If the God I’m searching for is truly loving it won’t matter so much the words I use or the specific things I believe becuase they’re so much metaphor anyway. What matters is the searching and the orientation. So I’m going to keep searching for a deeper understanding.
And I take comfort in Grace - like Steve C it’s about the only thing I read literally in the Bible these days.
Pither said,
December 13, 2006 at 2:54 pm
It is a pleasure to muse about this stuff with such open-minded folks. Sure am glad I stumbled on this place.
Brandon said,
December 13, 2006 at 3:01 pm
One thing I keep coming back to as I read all of your comments is Calvin’s doctrine of irresistible grace.
I find it fascinating, Pither, that you and I are/were members at churches that proclaim irresistible grace, yet are fearful of letting their sheep wander too far from the barn.
If Christians really believe the doctrine of irresistible grace, they should be willing to let people search, question, and ponder till their hearts are content. Instead, we don’t dare breath questions that might otherwise disclude us from fellowship because we haven’t got our spiritual shit together.
Also, the more I hear you muse, Pither, the more I’m convinced you should read “The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions”. You might end up on the Marcus Borg side of the argument, while I end up on the N.T. Wright side of the argument, but I think you might enjoy the read.
Keep chatting, and remember I love you all, even if you’ve got different methods of dealing with “fundie-hit-and-run-commenters”.
Steve C said,
December 13, 2006 at 4:46 pm
“I’ve not heard doubt defended in many churches and that’s probably why most doubters don’t feel welcome in church.”
—Gordon Venturella, “Not Without A Doubt”
I read this over on Edge of Faith website. Seemed appropriate.
UR4given said,
December 13, 2006 at 5:13 pm
This is one of the best threads going on this and other similar blogs. Even with the various ways we respond or react to one another. Kindof covers the gamut of human emotions that illicit from our sometimes frustrating search for truth and acceptance. The anger of Steve C…real. Thanks. But also, the post of scripture is pure and real in his intent…in that fundamentalists…of all persuasions…when addressing difficult questions or doubts where there seem to be no words or explanation that sooths the wound of doubt…its just easier to use the words of others and submit to some totalitarian authenticity of writ or religion. I understand where both are coming from…because I have been in both their shoes to some extent.
The hardest thing to do in life is throw out all your “absolutes” you grew up with and reconstruct as you guys are discussing here. I truly beleive this IS a prerequisite for truly knowing who you are and what you truly beleive. Yet…98.5% of fundamentalists…ok, even non-fundamentalists…are not interested or able to do this. WHy? For many reasons…but primarily because there is safety in numbers, we grow up in various levels of coersion to act, dress, talk, believe like a member of our family community or race. To throw all that away and re evaluate every internal factor of faith is disturbing, painful, and makes one feel very alone. And we know MOST people cant handle being ALONE.
Its really hard to find the balance when defining faith and belief between the heart and the mind. We WANT to feel safe and secure…confident of who and what we are. Yet…as our absolutes perish in front of our intellectual eyes…we find ourselves panic stricken…and reduced to “you and me against the world”…having few that we can talk to or agree with on these heavy issues weighing us down. Thank God he gave us tequila, beer, and for some of us a ton a food to make us relax a little and not have heart attacks over all this.
I truly dont think one comes into his or her own until they gone through the the deconstruction process…and open their minds and hearts to the difference and uniqueness that makes up…yes…Gods creation. For me it has been fundamental that IF God created all of us…and is ominpotent, omnipresent, and Omniscient…which are my fundamental rules of who God is supposed to be…then everything is the way it is supposed to be…including MY questions, nature, urges, emotions, and attitudes. Its ok that genetics and other sciences exist to explain things as much as possible though there are questions that I doubt science or religion will ever answer. I guess he also knows in advance who is going to heaven or hell (I am not neccessarily advocating there are or will be such places), who is right and wrong, and basically faith can be as “Que sera, sera” as we want it to be.
So I have retreated to some basic tenants of personal faith that all the commandments can be summed up to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart mind and soul, and your neighbor as yourself”. Contemporary translation…”Dont waste time hating God for the confusions caused you by man made religions and cults…instead embrace in pure faith that you were created, born with purpose, and can change the world you live in little by little by simply accepting the basics…and Love love loving yourself and others. Its OK to be ME! I love it. And yes, I will continue to grapple with the intellectual and theological perplexities of life. BUT…it is no longer “life and death” to me. And I even hope it somehow extends to an afterlife…an eternity…of loving God, myself and my neighbor.
I know, I’m sound like some flower child of the 70s on this love thing (I was there), but I really think life and faith can be much simpler and more fulfilling than we allow it to be. It doesnt depend on your affirmation of me…or my affirmation of you. But…affirmation still isnt a bad thing…and something we are finding in the exchanged thoughts on this blog.
Kudos Brandon…
Oh…and one more statement I meant to throw in somewhere…but will just tack it on for now. I found my intellectual faith center somewhere between the books “On Being Christian” by Hans Kung, and “Atlass Shrugged” and other writings of Ayn Rand. Once you have blended those extremes into a personal balance of beliefs…you have digested intellectual elephants in the process.
Shades of Faith - Tracks . . . - into the mysterious recesses of the mind of Greg Sanders said,
December 14, 2006 at 2:00 pm
[…] Why are Christians so Doubtful? […]
denise said,
December 15, 2006 at 11:56 am
I need to say this really trite thing– I almost never say really trite things, but it’s unbearable not to:
why not?
I’m going to put my arms over my head and run for cover, now.
This is a great post, by the way, and interesting responses, too. You are doing the right things, to get asked such good questions.
Andrew said,
December 16, 2006 at 9:31 pm
I am going to be borrowing some of your material. I am a fairly new resident to Utah, and I have grown to love a lot of LDS people. The thing I notice most is what you call “junk faith”. In all actuality, I feel no need that they should leave the LDS church. The thing I think is critical, is that they will not search out anything theologically in an honest way. The end is already determined, so all arguements are there to justify the end. I think your explanation of the problem of this is very well stated. Glad I found your blog!
Robert said,
December 17, 2006 at 12:56 am
Great discussion here, wish i had come by sooner!! I wanted to throw in a few thoughts on your very first commenter Brandon. Asking how to deal with other faiths like Islam. Mormons and such, who claim to have the truth. First we need to see if we believe in absolute truth or relativism. if there is no absolute truth well then we all can choose anything we want to believe because its all a matter of opinion and persoanl style anyhow. But, (so much fun to always have a but lol ) if ther IS absolute truth then we best determine how to understand it and affirm it.
Christianity is a faith based in history. God acted in history by creating everything, as well as all the events which have occurred in time/space, culminating in Jesus resurrection. Archaeology geology and other avenues have shown to uphold the Bible in discoveries they have made. The prohecies which Jesus fulfilled in the OT are so diverse and unique it is virtually impossible to cinsider anyone ever fulfilling a few let alone all of them like He did. Islam and Mormonism is open to falsification by historical review showing the lack of evidence to support their claims.
i sure hope this doesnt sound like jusat some pat reply to all the honest discussion here, i just think we cannot throw out aspects of the truth which are basic just because we are questioning everything as a whole. I know i will be a moere frequent visitor.
God - Tracks . . . - into the mysterious recesses of the mind of Greg Sanders said,
December 17, 2006 at 1:18 pm
[…] In the previous post I inserted a link to a blog article entitled “Why Are Christian’s So Doubtful?”. That article snagged my interest because it touched on something I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about. To wit: It seems like you have examined and rejected a lot of the stereotypical assumptions about what it means to be a Christian. I like that. Me too. But I’m wondering whether and how much you considered whether God even exists in the first place, whether God is somehow personal - that is, cares about my life, and what God requires I believe, both about God and about Jesus. […]
UR4given said,
December 17, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Robert…unfortunately, these sciences also back up many of the claims of OTHER religions than Christianity…Islam, Juddaism, Mormonism. Does that make ALL their faith or beliefs valid?
I also have to add that many biblical and Christian claims have “lack of evidence also”…so does that completely throw out Christianity as a viable faith? Lets be fair in our reasoning here…especially in the eyes of so many “witnesses” on this blog. Lets remember that the rudiment of faith is believing in that which cannot be proven…”Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen…”
God only knows how many “blind faithful followers” are ruining the world we live in with their empty epitaphs and senseless aggressions. The God I believe in is somewhere (as in NOT SURE WHERE) shaking his head and saying “enough already”…
Robert said,
December 17, 2006 at 6:15 pm
ur4given-
thank you for your response. I certainly was not trying to offer empty epitaphs or blind aggression. The person Brandon mentioned who asked the questions… I think history is a place to examine God being persoanl and involved in our lives. Mormonism claims to have the golden plates given to joseph smith by the angel moroni.. in reformed egyptian. No such language has been shown to exist, neither has the nephites or lamanites. You are right in what you said in quoting the verse from hebrews about faith. Thait is not the only verse however, and faith must have an object or else we all bkind leading the blind. As we seek like the questioner was in writing to brandon, ee cant just ignore evidences and proofs already established because we may not like them. There are diferent degrees of *proofs* Jesus did appear to the 11(judas was no more) and gave *proof8 as to His resurrection. If nothing can be proven in any kind of way then Christianity has been a gross wrong because it makes absolute claims against any other religion or belief system.
Pither said,
December 17, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Brandon: Yes, I do prefer the approach of Borg and Spong best. I think some of the other comments here are a bit simplistic. If they really believe that their faith is true because of all the fulfilled prophecies, eyewitness accounts, and scientific corroboration, then I would recommend that they not read Spong or Dawkins, since they might find that those things are not so obviously substantiated after all.
I’ll say it again: I need a faith that does not rely on the scientific veracity of historial or physical claims. My faith proves its value not by the outrageousness of the truth claims, nor by my tenacity and stubbornness of my grip on them, but rather by the behaviors it elicits from me: compassion, humility, love. If your faith motivates you in similar ways, then great. But let’s not pretend that the only way to reach that end is by believing certain dogmas to be literally true.
Brandon said,
December 17, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Then, I guess the question would become this: Are the behaviors of those who find themselves believing in a certain subset of historical facts (i.e. facts that would tend to mark one as a Christian, for instance) qualitatively different than those behaviors of others?
If so, why and if not, why not?
UR4given said,
December 17, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Pither…I can totally relate to where you are at here. Not to exclude Robert and others who want to hold on to a lifelong devotion of proving their presuppositions they were born with (though I know not Robert so I cannot sit in judgement or contempt of his position)…but I have always felt even in my “fundi days” that “by their fruits you shall know them” was a very key way to know who had a real faith and hold on “God”.
I havent studied as much as some of you Doctoral pursuers on this blog…but for a “laymen” have read my share…from the writings of “Josephus” to the Talmud and other classic historical writings. I also read most of the “apologists” that were in form 20+ years ago for Christianity…and to be honest I have no interest in re trekking those intellectual, theological and philisophical gymnastics. It all became a big circle/cycle to me coming back to that which was unprovable and demanding that daunting “leap of faith”. I just dont think you can have it both ways…faith…and absolute proof. And for sure, without “works” faith is dead…which means most of the churches we question here are seriously sick if not dead when it comes down to the core commandment.
Am I still a person of faith? More so than ever I think…but of course in a very non traditional way. I have always had a strong sense that everything was going to be alright and that “God has a plan for my life”. I just have always felt he doesnt really tell most of us until after we have been through the fire. I believe in God, Jesus, and many but not all tenets of traditional Christianity. I also have great respect for Islam, Bhuddists, and even ancient Indian traditions and rituals which were wiped out by the white man on our continent not that many generations ago. Because, at the core, the human condition is the same, no matter what label you call yourself or others. We are pretty ugly people, sinners if you want that label, and many of us are trying to become better, improve ourselves and the world around us. I can find commonality with almost anyone at an average of 80% in agreement. Why focus on the 20% of difference? Because that seems to be our nature I guess. Do we REALLY have to be right and all others wrong? Are you REALLY so absolutely sure that your “faith” is ziplocked, 100% impeccable, no leaks…THE Truth? If it is, I’m sorry to say I would probably call you delusional if i knew you.
UR4given said,
December 17, 2006 at 10:53 pm
Brandon…you and I were apparently writing at the same time…but your question brings an immediate response from me. If Christianity was to be purely judged by “behaviors”, then I would have probably sooner thrown it out of my life and easier. But in my 50+ years of life experience…I have not found Christianity to have a corner on good works, honesty, integrity or “love”. Anyone who has studied a little history knows just a few of the atrocities that have been done in the name of Christ and “evangelizing the world”. Whole cultures have been wiped out by fundamental fervor to religious dogma…and these people TRULY BELIEVED in what they were doing…and could find scripture to back up every act they wanted justified. Could it be that the world rejects the religion, not based on rejection of its dogma or theology, but on the content of its character and actions?
My last point for tonight is, when you see the ferver of Moslems throughout the world and their growing populations, their sense of community and cause…while our traditional churches are dying on the vine…is it any wonder that most social scientists see Christianity as being overun by Islam in the next century? And is fundamental Islam really that much different than fundamental Christianity? In word maybe…but in essence?
Robert said,
December 17, 2006 at 11:11 pm
ur4given… I see your points and believe it or not i have read Borg, tillich,m scott peck amongst others.. i am a fundie by no means. I understand your logic but i see you still as coming from a standpoint of relativism…. rejecting any absolute truth as Christianity claims. Faith can never be irrefutably verified otherwise it would not be faith!! However, Jesus Christ lived a life and made claims no one else has EVER made. Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection… period. As faras behavior goes, none of us can escape sin in this life even as christians. Only jesus and the Holy Spirit can live perfectly. As we mature spiritually our behaviors and beliefs should intertwine more and more hopefully. The presuppositions you declare me to have come because God communicated to us via the Bible. God set the parameters for what is universal truth, not i or any whom you see as fundie or narrow. Islam. buddhism,hinduism,wicca and countless other including atheists and gnostics also make claims for themselves but all differ so need to be sifted through to discover which stands. Christianity has the most solid ground overall to stand. imho peace to you all
Steve C said,
December 18, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Robert…
I know where you are coming from, however, logically you have to admit that your basis for absolute truth is the Bible… the claim that Jesus is the Son of God is based on your belief in the Bible… your basis for the Bible being God’s word is based on the Bible… your belief that the Judeo-Christian version of God is the “one true God” is based on the Bible —- and the reason you believe all these things is because the Bible says so. Your circular reasoning leaves gaping holes in your arguments.
However… like others that have come before you and will surely follow… you play “faith” as the card that gets you out of reason. You make assertive statements regarding Christianity (i.e. ther resurrection, Jesus made claims no one else ever has, Christianity has the most solid ground) and yet you don’t question at all the veracity of those claims. Why…. because your faith (which I define as the “myth of certainty”) is in the Bible, and yet there is plenty of scholarly investigation that calls into question the Bible that you hold in your hand.
Is it OK to have faith in something that is unproven or illogical or goes against reason? Certainly. I have no problem with that. My hope and reason for challenging you is so that Christians like yourself will begin to see that this thing called “faith” or “belief” does not preclude us from having very good reasons for what set of tenets we will live our lives by and teach our children. And if what we believe or have faith in does not hold up to the discoveries presented to us, then we must change our paradigm.
Steve C said,
December 18, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Brandon - to answer your last question.
I guess it depends really. In your question you make the distinction of “facts that would tend to mark one as a Christian”… and certainly those facts would be all over the board depending on the type of Christian one thinks one should be. It depends on all types of variables doesn’t it depending on one’s interpretation and view of the Bible.
In a broader sense (which I think you may be actually getting at) regarding caring, compassion, ethics, etc…. I am not sure “believing” in faith or any type of religion necessarily makes one a better person or causes one to have a better life than a person that doesn’t believe. And even if it does, the wonderful actions or “good works” of people of any faith, does not make their claims to that faith more true.
UR4given said,
December 18, 2006 at 8:52 pm
I think much of this discussion is winding back to defining what a Christian is. Is it someone who follows Christ, or someone who follows “The Bible”? Or, do you have to believe in the infallability of both? And is that infallability by word or by translation of that word? This gets real sticky in the area of apologetics of the faith.
Personally, I have seen more people become believers more by following the example of a strong and loving Christian example, than those who have read the Bible and come away with a huge sin complex. Again…its like your actions speak so loud, I cant hear your “word(s)”. Most 2bit Christians in my opinion are there for “eternal life”, Prosperity theology, and/or to hang around a few hundred other “hopeful”, needy souls who cant get a grip on this life either. I dont see these people as up to the great commission, or living lives that the “lost of this world” want to replicate.
Claims to faith in my opinion can only be lived…not proven. That is the essence of faith to me.
I’m with you on most of your thoughts SteveC…
Robert said,
December 18, 2006 at 11:20 pm
Steve C-
Thank you for the challenge , i truly welcome it. i have a few responses to challenge you back as well. I begain my original comment referring to history so i would not be caught in *circular reasoning* I have studied philosophy and have reasoned with atheists and others, who did not hold to the Bible as inspired. I do not hold to my faith simply because… *the Bible tells me so* of course there are challenges to that claim and all the ones i mentioned. My point of contention is that historical events which occurred in time/space and were witnessed to by those who lived on earth, serve as the greatest evidence and proof for Chrisitianitys claim to absolute universal truth.
The Enlightenment, science, marx, existentialisn, nihilism and countless other paradigms all challenge the veracity of the Bible. Funny how the Bible has withsttod all the challenges to it over the centuries. Steve, you and ur4given make a lot of assumptions here off my statements. i respect your challenges but don’t categorize me as one who simply accepts the claims of the Bible because the Bible makes those claims. Short space is tough to include all info needed Im sure as well.
Steve C said,
December 19, 2006 at 12:28 am
Robert… I wouldn’t pretend to have a corner on this subject. Actually I am quite ignorant in many respects. Nor do I pretend that I am the first to offer such arguments to you or anyone else. As mentioned before, I am in deconstruction mode… so I am just on this journey… and of course this post struck a chord.
Please don’t assume either Robert that I have not been where you are (although I do not claim to know all that you know perhaps). I am quite confident that I or are aware of many of your arguments, have studied them and many apologetics for this faith I have believed for the last 40 some odd years.
But it was you that wrote, “Faith can never be irrefutably verified otherwise it would not be faith!!” That statement pretty much sums it up for me… and as I have said… faith is presented by Christians as certainty when it is actually nothing more than intense wishful thinking. You may think you know, but you don’t know that you know.
Robert said,
December 19, 2006 at 4:00 am
Steve-
thanks brother for your thougtful insightful response. i do not assume anything about you or any others out in the blogosphere, too many headaches going down that road lol. I just wanted to make some further points to boolster the fact i wasnt just accepting the Bible without having recognized the arguments against its claims. None of us can ever share all our understanding in such short comments, else we would never leave the computer scary thought anyhow… the one thing i wanted to say as far as faith and certainty. an element of unkowing will always be prssent otherwise *faith8 would not exist because it would be complete fact. As in our concept of law and justice however, we make decisions on a preponderance of the evidence. I ascertain Christianity has establshed itself by preponderance of the evidence, and this included input from jewish witnesses such as Josephus, greeks such as heraclitus and countless others. if there was no supernatural revelation from God then i would be in the exact same boat as you and ur4given,,,,, Christianity lends enough support to its faith claims to give a logical degree of knowledge and understanding to uphold its claims to absolute truth. boy do i feel like i am back in seminary lol thanks very much for the dialogue steve i hope it will continue on many other subjects now that i have found this arena. Wish i had come by sooner
danutz said,
December 19, 2006 at 10:11 am
Brandon, thanks for that post. I’ve made a similar journey and the book you mentioned by Tom Wright and Marcus Borg was also a pivotal point in my journey. However, I really found Borg’s explaination to be much more compelling. I’ve since read many more of his books and his approach to these subjects brought peace between my head and my heart in a way I never thought was possible. He gave me a way to be Christian without checking my brain at the door.
I think the reply you would get from Borg (and me as well) to these types of questions is…. What would it matter? Believe what you want about “if” the resurrection was a literal historical event, now lets get on to what the important metaphorical meaning of the event means. The meaning will be the same to us regardless of if the was A) historical or B)fictional or C)a mingling of historical events melded with metaphorical meaning added for emphasis. The “truth” of the resurrection story is the Jesus continued to have meaning to Christians after his death and continues to provide meaning, direction, and motivation to us that follow him today. Regardless of which side of that debate you fall on, the “meaning” for us today is to follow his way of being transformed or “living through dying to self” as Paul described so well. We shouldn’t be OBSESSED with getting the correct doctrine about what his death meant or if he was literally resurrected.
We do owe a great deal to the story of the resurrection because the resurrection stories were critical to the prolonged survival of the Christian faith. The story of Jesus may not have survived without those stories added to the “legend”. This is why you will see the “sightings” types of stories added to tellings of the story as in the last bit of the book of Mark which was added to the text by a later author to add weight to the story. These stories tell us one thing for sure; they tell us that Christians continued to experience Jesus in heart and mind after his death. That is what is important and I’m ok leaving the “physical” aspect of the resurrection open to interpretation. The end result on my choices in life to follow his “way” will be the same either in either case. Belive what you want and don’t be hung-up on it. Just go live it.
UR4given said,
December 19, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Huge points Danutz. Why religions fight over so many miniscule points that CANNOT BE PROVEN is beyond me. Years back I lived a few years in Grand Rapids, MI and was part of many lively discussions between Calvinists and Armenians:). Looking back, while it was entertaining at times…for the most time it was a waste compared to the issues of this life that are REALLY important…even related to faith.
I also have come to believe based on what I have seen and experienced that many contemporary believers based their faith on that moment of “seeing the light”…some event or moment when at least in their mind they were seeing something manifested that seemed mystical, pararnormal or perhaps even “spiritual”. An interesting book I have been reading lately by Deepak Chopra - How to know God,
The idea which I thing has much substance is that most miraculous experiences both from biblical times…and in modern times…start in an infinite part of our finite brains/minds. For us to even carry on this discussion involves some pretty miraculous/mysterious functionality that even Drs and scientists can still not fully explain. How do you explain the miraculous? I, even in my doubting Thomas mode, have seen a number of miracles in my life…both physical and non. Does this prove anything theologically? Does it make me any more or less a person “of faith”…just because I may not accept every dogmatic statement of a Christian religion or church? I think historically…most people that had these “moments” of bright light or miraculous encounters with Jesus or others (Paul, many of the deciples, etc etc)…were typically shunned or thrown out of their synygogues or churches of the day. Why should it be any different now?
I guess this carrys the conversation somewhat away from theology and provable doctrines…and describes what I think more faiths are based on…that “bright light” or mystical experience that started from the dark resources of the brain God created us with. Not on some rational metrics based on historical writings…that may or may not have been embellished or added/subtracted from by 3rd parties…or King James etc:).
For me this all adds back up to faith being an individual journey for each of us…with some obvious acknowledgement of mental “pre programming” based on where and how we grew up. Most of us here are admittedly “recovering fundamentalists or evangelicals” who have had the courage to challenge our presuppositions. Some of us “stayed in the fold”, others of us have moved far away in our experience and philosophies of life and faith. Yet…it is still meaningful to have these blog discussions and share in this modern forum of technology from disparate locations in this shrinking world we live in.
Robert said,
December 20, 2006 at 12:08 am
danutz… *just go live it* says it about as in short and direct a way as possible. I DO have problems with discarding the importance of whether or not Jesus resurrection was *lieral/historical* The gnostics, stoics and other groups around the time of Christ had a view that body was bad spirit/mind was good. You culddo anything you wanted to with your body because what really mattered was the *spirit8 in you the true 8essence* Apostle Paul addressed these issues in his epistles indicating if Christ was *literally raised* then we are dead in our sins and have ho hope. The purpose of living is the same as you noted regardless however it happened. But, without it being *actual , historical, literl* we have no foundation to rest upon for hope of what he promised.
The challenge to traditional presuppositions isnt new, was around way before marcys borg. many still accept the notion that Paul added to and changed Christianity from its original intent. The thing is, if you hold that the Bible cannot be proven to be the Word of God as it claims to be, then you have to throw out all history and literature ever written in the past because the same argument holds true for all of it as well. Ultimately it leads to a downward spiral ending up with sartres *being and nothingness* we are leaping in the dark with no clue where we land or if we eill land. Chrisitianity answers the challenges we face in dealing with ultimate issues, even with all the challenges which claim to rip holes in its legitimacy.
mike rucker said,
December 22, 2006 at 6:32 pm
having figured it all out, i am no longer consumed by any of this.
ahem.
i’ve found that my mind will wrestle with something until it squeezes the last ounce of life out of it, and then it will resuscitate just so it can being squeezing it again. i have been on a long journey of faith - raised a baptist, felt ‘called’ to the ministry, went to seminary in mid-life, and have, over the last few years, decided i no longer believe in what i was taught - both growing up and in seminary. i believe jesus died and rose again - i’m just not sure we know why. i think paul is no better an amateur theologian than i am; we’re both on a life-long quest to make heads or tails out of God, man, and how we relate. deciding i didn’t believe in a fiery hell anymore was the first step, and i think the church’s refusal to let this doctrine go will make the church more and more irrelevant in my lifetime.
thanks for the blog; will put a link to your’s on mine (escroll.blogspot.com).
wildwest said,
December 23, 2006 at 8:36 pm
If the only way to get to heaven is to believe that the world was created in six days some 6,000 years ago, that the words “lion,” “tiger,” elephant,” “donkey” and “platypus” were all invented by a man named Adam, that Balaam really did have a literal, physical conversation with a donkey who could talk his language, that the city of Jericho was felled by trumpet music, that Jesus was born of a virgin, turned water into wine, fed 5,000 people with five fishes and five loaves of bread, and was literally and physically brought to life after being dead for three days, or any combination thereof, I’ve been damned for two decades. The only hope for me would be to lie to myself, and that wouldn’t work. I have come to see a deeper meaning in all of those metaphorical illustrations, and the longer I live the more it means to me. I certainly can understand the need to believe in these things literally. I started out that way. But when one can no longer give intellectual assent to these things in all honesty, to attempt to believe them is to go backwards. Intellectual honesty can only move one forward, and to dare to move forward into realms unknown is risky, but the truth itself is more complex the more familiar we become with it. It is also more beautiful the more I become aware of it.
Robert said,
December 24, 2006 at 4:15 pm
wildwest…. I am curious to know what the *realms unknown* are that you speak of??? What is the *deeper meaning* that the Bible contains if these miracles are not literally true??? Jesus basic message… *Love god with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself* nothing hidden or deep there that is a pretty straightforward message. Jesus resurrection, His fulfilling all the OT prophecies and His performing miracles and living a perfect life free from sin all make Him unique from anyone else. its isn’t that we dont know the right way to live it is that we can’t do it in our own selves, we must have Christ and the Holy Spirit in order to. I do not see how believing these things represents intellectual dishonesty unless you dicard any supernatural being in existence. I would like more explanation if you could on your fina point, exactly how has the truth become more complex and more familiar and more beautiful to you???
willdwest said,
December 24, 2006 at 9:07 pm
I’m not sure it can be explained in the terms you describe, Robert. Religion is metaphorical by nature. I cannot describe it as I could the position of the Sun and the planets. If I had only seen in black and white all my life and asked you to describe “orange” to me, you couldn’t do it. If I suddenly gained the ability to see in color, however, I wouldn’t need to have you define it for me. Religious stories have served to illustrate truths that can only be realized, not demonstrated scientifically. The statement “they have eyes to see, but they do not see” does not describe people who are literally, physically blind. Likewise, when we sing the line in “Amazing Grace” “I was blind, but now I see,” we do not sing of the cure of a physical illness. We sing of spiritual awakening, which is different by its nature. There isn’t anything “hidden” in the statement “Love god with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself,” unless you are referring to an awareness that is hidden from one’s “view” (again, “view” not to be taken literally as in physically). What is the truth behind that statement? It’s worlds without end. I come to a greater realization of it all the time. In that I grow in spiritual awareness. Your statement that in order to live correctly “we must have Christ and the Holy Spirit in order to” says more than those eleven words can convey by themselves. What exactly does that mean? I believe it is a way of using words to describ an awareness that is a “great mystery” (as described elsewhere in the Bible). I certainly do not “discard any supernatural being in existence,” but then what do you mean by “supernatural?” I cannot describe anything “supernatural” in a “natural” framework of discussion. But then, the Bible doesn’t, either. Jesus talked in parables, David described his experiences in poetry. What they talked about was, of course, very, very real. But also very unexplainable in textbook fashion. “Said the night wind to the little lamb, ‘Do you see what I see?’” Do you know what I know? I hope you “see” and “hear” and “know” that the world is full of the glory of God this Christmas also, and that over time we will come to know it more and more.
Jacke said,
December 25, 2006 at 3:54 am
Merry Christmas!
wildwest said,
December 25, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Where is the message I composed last night? It was lengthy, and it would take a very long time to rewrite. Hope it shows up.
Merry Christmas, everybody!
Robert said,
December 26, 2006 at 3:57 am
Hopeall had a Merry Christmas and hope your post shows up wildwest!!
Robert said,
December 27, 2006 at 12:52 am
wildwest-
*Do you hear what I hear* one of my favorite christmas songs, and describes your point perfectly!!! i am in total agreement with you in all you layed out about the majesty and wonder of God and His works wildwest. My meaning in saying we must have Jesus and the Holy Spirit in us in order to live as God intends is both literal and symbolic, just as the writing in the Bible is. Literal because Jesus and the Holy Spirit are REAL, they are not *myth* such as santa claus or the gods of rome and greece. Symbolic in that the meaning they provide us is beyond our limited human understanding and far more than we can ever hope to convey. I just wanted to have you expound so I could see your points as you so marvelously articulated. I do not seek to limit spiritual understanding down to natural and scientific terms but also want to make sure they are not reduced to a *universalism* which removes them from historical relity. * the heavens are declaring the glory of God* may it forever be realized more and more!!!
UR4given said,
December 27, 2006 at 11:57 pm
Robert, language itself is such a special and sometimes confusing thing. Just like your statement quoted here…can mean so many things to so many different people. Take “universalism” for instance. What does that mean? Are you saying you dont want the universe involved in Spiritual understanding…or that science and nature cannot line up with “spiritual understanding”, whatever that means to you? If the heavens are declaring the glory of God, is that not a universal thing? Or is that just for a select few who accept a literal king james version of the bible and all things literal besides?
And we wonder why Christians are so easily doubtful?…and doubted?
Robert said,
December 28, 2006 at 2:23 am
UR4given… well i think your question shows why we have discussion, to clarify our meanings behind our words. My point was *universalism* in a philsophical/theological context, stating that everything religious leads to God, no distinctions between Christianity and other religions. As I shared in my reply to wildwest, the Bible very clearly demonstrates not all of it is to be taken literally and that is by the context of the literary style being used. I am not a king james only advocate by any means, nor a strict literalist. Being challenged to communicate as concisely as possible i think is a good thing discussions like these help promote.
I would like to see those who have stated all the cracks in the claims the Bible makes to being inerrant and Gods authoritative Word to share those more openly to investigate just how well they hold up as legit challenges.
wildwest said,
December 29, 2006 at 12:42 am
I suppose I should simply be happy that you appreciated what I wrote, or that it at least resonates with you, Robert, although I’m sure we’re coming at things from different angles. Terms like “authoritative” and “inerrant” can have so many different meanings. I have stopped using them. I will only give one example. Then I will let you wrestle with it as you see fit. I used to say, “If by saying you mean the Bible is inerrant, you mean that God doesn’t lie, then I guess the Bible is inerrant.” Well, I’ll grant that “God doesn’t lie” is a statement I will not argue with (whatever that means). But when people argue for inerrancy, they sometimes say that means that “the sun and the moon stood still” rerfers to the current scientific understanding of the sun’s rotation (or something) and not to the geocentric understanding of the time in which it was written (in which it was believed the sun and moon revolved around the earth). I do not see a need to force myself to try to believe that God, who was obviously aware of the astronomy we know today, whispered some “inerrant” modern astronomical knowledge into an Israelite’s ear long before the scientists used the scientific method to discover it. Attempts at forcing myself to believe *anything* have always hindered and impeded my awareness of spirit, however you define it.
Bernie said,
December 29, 2006 at 11:50 am
Hi Brandon-
Any opinions on this report that seems to show some ministers are making a profit on religion?:
http://www.freegoodnews.com/2006/12/reformation_200.html
Some ministers are doing a great job, too, and not being scammers.
Robert said,
December 29, 2006 at 9:06 pm
wildwest- thanks for taking the time to gather your thoughts and respond. Language is a slippery thing at times if we do not define our terms. By inerrant i do mean that God cannot lie as well as that His Word is without error in its original form. We do not have the original manuscripts but possess so many copies that alot of the textual variants and such can be noted fairly accurately. I am curious if you would consider yourself a *christian* in the orthodox historic sense of that term.I ask this because of some of your statements where you talk about *spirit* and questioning the validity of the various miracles in the Bible. Definitions are crucial theologically because Christianity separates itself in huge ways from all other religions and belief systems. Grace is found only in Christianity, as well as Jesus being the God-man. if we talk about *spirit* and religious terms in vague ways or in all-encompassing terms then Christianity loses its uniqueness and becomes just one among many.
wildwest said,
December 31, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Christian? Yes. Historic and orthodox? No. I know your position on the “original autographs” well, having done extensive research on old Princeton. Charles Hodge considered the Bible a “storehouse of facts” for the theologian studying God scientifically. It is a position I had to leave behind 23 years ago. Perhaps it is important for me to make that distinction for you if I am to communicate clearly. Nonetheless, clarity does have its limits in being able to communicate experience. Talking of “spirit” and using religious terms has a necessary “vagueness” to it because things of the spirit cannot be adequately described in terms scientific and tangible, in my opinion. Grace cannot be adequately described to anyone who has not experienced it, but once you have experienced it, it is something no one else can take away from you. Any attempt to circumscribe the experience by claiming that one has to believe in the inerrancy of the original autographs, for example, can put the experience on the back burner, leaving one forever defending a point of view at the expense of living in that experience every moment. I wish I could communicate this more clearly, but such is the nature of experience. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “all-encompassing terms,” but I sense you believe your religious experience would be threatened without the anchor of believing in such things as inerrancy, miracles, etc. as a precursor to that experience. If you need to anchor your experience that way, by all means, do so. I will not presume to be able to judge your methods. But I have had to find other ways to anchor my experience.
vynette said,
December 31, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Brandon,
Sorry to enter this conversation so late.
You said…”every argument man can dream up can be convincingly counter-argued, debunked, and shown to be wanting.”
I’d like to propose the argument that the doctrines of the churches are not a reflection of Hebrew Christianity but rather a reflection of the minds of the Graeco-Roman church fathers. My premises are that the Apostles taught the following about Jesus of Nazareth:
I’d welcome some counter-arguments although the ensuing conversation could be carried on for months.