gdp's Comments

Honest Uncertainty : "Just Believe"

Wed, 20 May 2009 11:15:56 +0000

I think most Christians you talk to have a "workaround" theory on this. One my friend proposed is that they (those who never heard the gospel on Earth) will have an opportunity to accept or reject Jesus personally on the day of judgment. At this time they will hear about the gospel, and be given the same choice the rest of us had. To me, this explanation raises a lot of questions, but anyway he admits it is just a theory.

Honest Uncertainty : "Just Believe"

Wed, 20 May 2009 01:55:54 +0000

Hi Lyndsey, I appreciate your response. While I know we still do not see eye to eye, you have a certain openness about you that is very inviting. I look forward to discussing with you more tomorrow when I post the article you have sent to me. I just wanted to ask one question. If I'm not mistaken, what Jesus said is that if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you can move mountains. Do you believe this statement was literal, metaphorical or both? Aaron

Honest Uncertainty : Honestly Tired

Tue, 19 May 2009 21:51:23 +0000

uh oh - sorry. i need to go back and fix my misspellings. actually just posted my response. but thanks for being understanding. :)

Honest Uncertainty : Reasons For Belief

Tue, 19 May 2009 20:47:26 +0000

Don, It is all part of the same project to me. If it is possible to know that Jesus rose from the dead, then I want to know. So for me, mapping out the paths that other people take to believe might be of some value. Or perhaps not. But I agree your category "Faith" or perhaps "just believing" is different from the others. May I ask, do you believe that the angel Gabriel came to Muhammad and revealed the Qur'an to him? Why or why not? Thanks, Aaron

Honest Uncertainty : Day #22

Mon, 18 May 2009 18:55:07 +0000

Pigs flying is obviously a ridiculous example.� But take the gospel account, imagine it were true.� That a man came, performed miracles, preached a radical message of love, told you he would be crucified and would rise again, and then did - or at least seemed to.� For me, I would accept it immediately.� It would capture my heart and overwhelm my mind.

I guess what I'm getting at is if something miraculous happened that wasn't random or ridiculous but actually seemed endowed with significance and purpose, my criteria for believing would not necessarily be so \"rational.\"� To stick with my philosophical arguments at that point would feel a bit arrogant, as though I would not \"allow\" for God to suspend the laws of the universe that he presumably created.

So, unless I had other reasons for doubting my own sanity, I would be willing to accept a miracle if it happened before my eyes.� But the fact remains - I have never seen anything miraculous.� I have absolutely no real reason for believing Jesus rose from the dead at this point, and to me I won't just believe because I want it to be true, nor will I just \"believe first, understand later.\"� I don't feel like true belief is something that can be manipulated so easily.

Am I making any sense?

Honest Uncertainty : Day #22

Mon, 18 May 2009 18:33:29 +0000

Is there no point at which you would accept something miraculous, or would you insist on your own insanity until the very end?

Honest Uncertainty : "It is because of your sin that you are uncertain."

Thu, 14 May 2009 23:16:37 +0000

Thank you for your response - very heartfelt indeed. As I mentioned in a previous comment, I am really drawn by the trope of "light" and "darkness." Usually in my own life, when I am faced with a decision, I know which is which. When I move towards the "light," I am doing something not necessarily for my own benefit, but the benefit of all. When I am moving towards darkness, I am indulging only myself, regardless of whom is hurt by my actions. I am sure most everyone has experienced this dichotomy. Which isn't to say, of course, that there aren't gray areas. But anyway, this is how I think of sin and if it is a helpful way for people to think about things then I see no problem with using that language.

Honest Uncertainty : "It is because of your sin that you are uncertain."

Thu, 14 May 2009 23:03:15 +0000

Thank you for responding. Before I went to sleep last night, I told Brianne that I must remember that those who would condemn me (whether or not you are a part of that group is beside the point - but thank you for saying you do not condemn me) are experiencing far greater hurt than the hurt they cause me by their condemnation. I am sure this statement requires much more explanation, a lot of which will hopefully become clearer once I finally manage to finish my biographical narrative. You see, at one time I believed I knew the truth. The truth was similar, but in many ways very different, from the truth you know. I believed that I was going to heaven because I had accepted Christ. Anyone who had not accepted Christ was en route to Hell. Therefore it was my personal responsibility to do everything in my power to help direct the "lost" towards salvation. Ultimately, this resulted in quite a bit of pain, as all I saw around me were lost people. If a person did something kind for me, it was as though I had to ask myself whether this person was "saved" before I could feel anything. I could not see people for who they were, only where they were headed. "Love thy neighbor" was perhaps Jesus's clearest command, and yet, this was perhaps the most difficult for me to live out. Loving my neightbor meant only one thing - doing everything in my power to sway them to my viewpoint. Of course, it was not "my viewpoint." It was simply Truth. Unfortunately, it never felt like Love. It felt more like bullying. I felt true Love later, when I lost my faith and began doing service work. When I helped others with absolutely no agenda, no desire to save them or convert them, it was then that I understood what it meant to love my neighbor. In my opinion, agendas and love are quite at odds with one another. The more you have of one, the less you have of the other. If you do not feel this way as you move about the world then I am very thankful for that fact, for your sake. I don't presume that everyone interprets the "gospel" the way that I did, or feels the kind of misery I did. But at the same time, I doubt I was the only one. I think repentance is quite important. I feel I have had many moments of repentance in my life, and I hope that I have many more. It is so important I believe to reach a place where you have "had it" with yourself, and are ready to fully shed your ego and embrace the light. I do believe in light and darkness, by the way. However I don't think anyone is ever totally in one or the other. I wish to walk towards the light and away from darkness as much as I am able, but I know that I will never be entirely free of this struggle as long as I am alive. And so, I put it to you - are you free of sin? Are you, yourself, in need of repentance? If not, then I commend you for achieving perfection. But if so, then by your own analysis, how can you or I or anyone else be certain that your viewpoint is correct? I suppose what saddens me the most about the person who accused me of having some sin or another is that, by his very statement, he denies his own sin, his own imperfection, and yes - his own uncertainty. In so doing, he participates in what I feel is a widespread denial of our own fundamental identity as human beings. We are all the same. Nothing could be more terrifying, or more true.

Honest Uncertainty : Reasons For Belief

Thu, 14 May 2009 21:19:52 +0000

Just checking - you realize that "Mr. Atheist" and I are not the same person, right? :) I think its a fair question though. When you say "It makes sense to me that he would change as we change as parents to adapt to our growing and developing children," - it only makes sense if God is limited by time, as we are. But my understanding has always been that there is no past, present or future with God. God created time, and can move in and out of it at will. Therefore any statements about God "adapting" do seem rather self-contradictory.

Honest Uncertainty : Reasons For Belief

Thu, 14 May 2009 21:17:02 +0000

Not a direct response per se - but a similar thing happened in Buddhism. I do not believe Buddha was a god, and yet he was turned into one as his teachings became "relgion." I wonder sometimes if people do not "deify" human beings who seem to transcend ordinary human limits because deification "excuses" us from living up to their example. After all, we know we are not gods. Worship is far easier than imitation.

Honest Uncertainty : Reasons For Belief

Thu, 14 May 2009 21:10:48 +0000

I'm not really claiming anything, except that it is debatable whether Jesus really claimed to be God. A few writers I resepct, including David Rudel who visits the blog occasionally, have made (for me) a pretty convincing case that he did not - and that such a claim would have been out of line with all of Jewish (monotheistic) teaching, not to mention messianic prophecy. Basically I think that if Jesus truly believed he was God, this would have appeared in scripture more clearly. Anyway, as with so many things in the Bible, I think it is hard to know for sure. You can have faith, or opinions, but not certainty.

Honest Uncertainty : Reasons For Belief

Wed, 13 May 2009 14:48:54 +0000

Where would you like to move on to? :) Unless I am mistaken, Islam is now the dominant world religion. I don't think that makes Islam true, as some might claim, nor do I think that means its popularity is being propped up by Satan - as others would say. What it means is that its ideas, values, myths appeal to people in particular places and circumstances on a massive scale. I do not believe it would be very difficult at all to conduct some sociological studies explaining its recent growth. I imagine the reasons would have more to do with the believers than the belief. In my years of spiritual wandering, one religion that still sticks with me as being one of the most profound and possibly "true" is Zen Buddhism. If you ask a Zen Buddhist what he/she "believes" you may have a rather difficult time getting an answer. It is a religion not so much of words, but of practice. Sit. Sit. Sit. If you say you have found the truth, this is the first sign that you have not. Meditation has its rewards, but if you meditate in order to experience the rewards, you have lost your way. I bring this up because although I find Zen Buddhism to contain profound truth, it certainly has not - nor do I imagine it ever will - spread like wildfire. I think the reason is simple: it's too hard. I don't think anything could be more difficult (especially in this day and age, but really any age) than to simply sit, quiet ones mind, and wait for truth to reveal itself - no matter how long it takes, and yes, even if you think it might never arrive. If you recall, Jesus' message was never presented as an easy one either. And for that reason, many rejected it - especially when it was in its purest form: the message taught by Jesus personally. I think, in a way, a teaching "spreading like wildfire" diminishes, rather than adds to its credibility. “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it” (Matthew 7:13-14). So when you write "There's a reason why millions read the Bible and see it and a very small minority see otherwise," I would say- yes, there is certain a reason so many hold on to specific doctrines about Jesus - but is it a "good" reason?

Honest Uncertainty : Reasons For Belief

Wed, 13 May 2009 14:13:24 +0000

I think saying that Jesus "ran around claiming to be God" is a bit of an overstatement - if not outright false. This topic has come up many times on this blog already. There are actually only a handful of scriptures that could even be interpreted as Jesus claiming divinity, but opinions as to whether or not that is what he was claiming are far from unanimous. It's important to realize that "Son of God" was a synonym for "messiah." If you read the prophets, no where is it stated that the messiah would be God incarnate. The messiah was most definitely to be a man, a king, a leader, a messenger - sent by God. Needless to say, I feel a highly defensible argument can be made that Jesus did not claim to be God and so the choice between "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" is a false one. Why did it "spread like wildfire?" Well as someone who has spent a time looking at viral marketing over the past several years, I can tell you one thing - something does not have to be true to spread like wildfire. :)

Honest Uncertainty : Reasons For Belief

Wed, 13 May 2009 14:07:23 +0000

Hi Tim. A minor point - what I was trying to present above were the stated reasons for belief - not necessarily saying they are accurate. But as always, I appreciate your input.

Honest Uncertainty : Is it safe to reject the resurrection any longer?

Tue, 12 May 2009 12:44:00 +0000

When I say God I mean "the Ultimate." If you do not believe in a conscious force driving creation, substitute "universe" for "God" and it comes out to pretty much the same thing.

Honest Uncertainty : Where Does Any of the Historical Evidence Come From?

Thu, 7 May 2009 13:26:32 +0000

True - but I think what Jordan is really responding to are the arguments that the Bible is totally fictional, there was no Jesus, etc.

Honest Uncertainty : 100 Days of Reflection on the Question of Jesus' Resurrection

Sat, 2 May 2009 23:22:20 +0000

do you consider everyone who believes in god to be a fool?

Honest Uncertainty : My transformation, part VII

Sat, 2 May 2009 16:48:23 +0000

Clear evidence? No. You would often hear things. Such and such had cancer, now it has completely vanished... as well as more subtle healings reported. Nothing that really impacted my personal life, however. Or nothing that I would describe as indisputably miraculous. My experience in Toronto could be classified as "hard to explain," but surely not miraculous (no matter how powerful it may have felt.) Yes it is the Pentecostal strain, as you describe. But, in all fairness, are their claims or expectations really all that far outside what can be defended scripturally? Ok, so I can understand saying "holy laughter" is not in the scripture. But there was speaking in tongues - whatever that meant - in the first few chapters of Acts. This was the first "miracle" associated with the apostles after Jesus' ascension into heaven - at least as far as I understand it. And here is a point that I think is relevant to all those who accept the gospel, not matter what their interpretation of it. There is a lot of focus on the issue of salvation, redemption, the final Judgment, etc. Why? Because none of this is really provable or disprovable. Sure you could say someone's life has turned around, and that is evidence of salvation. But people have had their lives turned around for all sorts of reasons. But, you would have to be a liar, a lunatic or a fool to miss one quite obvious point of all these scriptures: MIRACLES. MIRACLES were the evidence of Jesus' power and authority. MIRACLES were the evidence that the apostles had been passed this same mantle from Jesus. No one in the gospels, it seems, expected anyone to be convinced by philosophical argument or historical proof. The proof was in the visible display of God's power on earth. No one likes to think about this too much because, lets be real - no one has that kind of power right now. At least as far as we can tell. So, I think if nothing else you have to at least credit the Pentecostals for being one of the few denominations to not simply "explain away" or ignore the obvious message that with the message of Jesus comes (at least the claim of) supernatural power on this Earth. Aaron

Honest Uncertainty : Does The Disciples’ Conviction That They Saw The Risen Jesus Establish The Truth Of The Resurrecti

Fri, 1 May 2009 16:23:31 +0000

Me too. Thanks to everyone who has commented. I have a lot of catching up to do... :)