Got Doubts?

[Tom Wetmore]

A book to recommend - The Sacredness of Questioning Everything

[Gerr]

How do you balance "questioning everything" with : "But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways."

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Jas 1:6–8). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

"And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him."

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Heb 11:6). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

[John317]

What are the positive aspects of questioning everything?

Does this include encouraging people to doubt the truth of God and of the Bible?

I haven't read Mr. Dark's book on the sacredness of questioning everything, but I know that if he means we should doubt God and His Word, he is wrong. Such a thesis would clearly contradict the Bible as well as the Spirit of prophecy.

Hebrews 11:3

By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

Hebrews 11:6

And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

NOTE: Many say they believe He exists but do they believe that God rewards those who seek Him?

James 1:5-6

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. [6] But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind.

Quote:

The reason why there is so little of the Spirit of God manifested is that ministers learn to do without it. They lack the grace of God, lack forbearance and patience, lack a spirit of consecration and sacrifice; and this is the only reason why some are doubting the evidences of God's word. The trouble is not at all with the word of God, but in themselves. They lack the grace of God; lack devotion, personal piety, and holiness. This leads them to be unstable, and throws them often on Satan's battle-field. I saw that however strongly men may have advocated the truth; however pious they may appear to be; when they begin to talk unbelief in regard to some scriptures, claiming that they cause them to doubt the inspiration of the Bible, we should be afraid of them; for God is at a great distance from them.— Vol. I, p. 383. {GW92 246, 247}

The general method of educating the youth does not meet the standard of true education. Infidel sentiments are interwoven in the matter placed in schoolbooks, and the oracles of God are placed in a questionable or even an objectionable light. Thus the minds of the youth become familiar with Satan's suggestions, and the doubts once entertained become to those who entertain them, assured facts, and scientific research is made misleading on account of the way its discoveries are interpreted and perverted. Men take it upon themselves to rein up the word of God before a finite tribunal, and sentence is pronounced upon the inspiration of God according to finite measurement, and the truth of God is made to appear as a thing uncertain before the records of science. These false educators exalt nature above nature's God, and above the Author of all true science. At the very time when teachers should have been firm and unwavering in their testimony, at the very time when it should have been made manifest that their souls were riveted to the eternal Rock, when they should have been able to inspire faith in those who were doubting, they made admission of their own uncertainty as to whether the word of God or the discoveries of science, falsely so called, were true. Those who were truly conscientious have been made to waver in their faith because of the hesitation of those who were professed expositors of the Bible when they dealt with the living oracles. Satan has taken advantage of the uncertainty of the mind, and through unseen agencies, he has crowded in his sophistries, and has caused men to become befogged in the mists of skepticism. {FE 328.2}

[CoAspen]

Is it a human condition or a religious condition, for people to start posting and questioning the authors book before even reading based solely on the title?

No wonder their is so much 'argument' amonst persons.....don't try to understand the other side.....just presume!!!

[John317]

No one is presuming anything.

The question about the book's teachings has been asked:

Quote:

What are the positive aspects of questioning everything?

Does this include encouraging people to doubt the truth of God and of the Bible?

I haven't read Mr. Dark's book on the sacredness of questioning everything, but I know that if he means we should doubt God and His Word, he is wrong. Such a thesis would clearly contradict the Bible as well as the Spirit of prophecy.

It would be good to know something about the book so readers will be able to decide whether they want to read it.

[John317]

Here's part of one of the book reviews:

Quote:

Dark clearly writes from the Christian tradition, but seems to attack those seeking to live within, while constantly reforming its historical confessions. "Uncle Ben" concepts of God should be rejected (and have been rejected throughout the history of the church), but I fear Dark may be playing on the intended audience, implying that we must reinvent the wheel, seeking insights from all faith traditions. I agree wholeheartedly that we constantly need to deconstruct (or if you prefer, reform), while being engrossed in our great tradition to find the Spirit's future for us. The Spirit has led the church throughout its history and plunging the depths of previous theological insights will better help us to situate ourselves today, and see a clear God-led vision for our future. I'm not sure that Dark would disagree, but I think he underemphasized the history of Church in thought and action.

See this and other reviews of the book:

http://www.amazon.com/Sacredness-Questio...7208&sr=8-1

[fccool]

It's a very interesting book. Thank you for the link, especially since I am a kindle guy .

This is a very sensitive subject for fundamentalist Christianity, who usually interpret such Christianity to be the only one. For them, doubt is lethal, because it destroys the order and idea of "knowledge" that exists in their minds. For me, it's a dead giveaway when a preacher stands up, finds a passage with "you" in it, and begins telling the congregation as to what God wants them to do. It's a dead giveaway that such church does not employ reasonable context and ideas, but rather works off improperly contextualized dogmas.

I think the hardest issue to breakthrough is that our idea of God is conceptual, it's not "true". I certainly believe that there is God. I believe that Bible is inspired by God, but not "dictated" as fundomentalists tend to interpret it. Bible is a collection of verbalized oral tradition, and concepts that present a certain view of God from perspective of ancient writers, which inject quite a bit of their own perception and culture.

Inspiration in terms of creative process means influence. Bible writers were influenced by God directly or indirectly, but it does not mean that Bible is a 100% "God's word". I'd say that it's a 100% of man's word, which was inspired by their view of God in their historical place and time.

For example, it's established that traditionally, Moses wrote the first 5 books. Why? Why would such belief necessary. Such belief is necessary to inject the authoritative figure, who spoke face-to-face with God with authorship of the divine material. But, if were really examine the content, it's obvious that one person could not have and did not write the first five books of the Bible, and it's a collection of at times conflicting traditions and stories that were patched together to make a complete narrative. There would not be a reason for one person to have the range of various description of events. If you hear one person telling you a story of their life that you never tired of hearing , people are generally consistent. We don't find such consistencies in language, grammar and content of the first 5 books, and it becomes obvious that many Bible books of themselves are a composite of writers, just like the Bible itself is a composite of books.

That is the very reason why it may be seen as "super-human", because it is. It was really written by quite a bit of authors that are coming from various backgrounds of expertise and understanding, and these authors were given authority of the Characters that the Biblical narrative describes when they were edited under a single author who gets all of the super-human credit.

I don't mean to open an off-topic can of sacred cow here, but I find that E.G. White worked in similar manner. She had an extensive library of material that she would systematize and piece together based on her own directed view of material, which then was further collected and edited by various editors, hence all of the allegation of at times verbatim plagiarism. We can't say that she "did not write these books" because she actually feeds from a collective of writers, but at the same time, it does make her writing to seem super-human, because it's really a large collective of wisdom and commentary from various derived sources on church, health and theology. But, since a name of a girl that only received several grades of education is on the cover... then it would seem that the material was inspired by God. I don't dispute inspiration, but once again... we should understand how all of these things were put together.

But, coming back to the issue of doubt. Doubt is a natural process of human learning. Saying that one is wrong to doubt Bible and its content is essentially setting up a double standard on exploration of truth, which results from examination of wide range of evidence, then through doubt (which is defined as "lack of conviction") make educated choices about certain beliefs or facts. If we don't have an opportunity to examine certain things through doubt, then how are those things to prove to be true?

[John317]

But, coming back to the issue of doubt. Doubt is a natural process of human learning. Saying that one is wrong to doubt Bible and its content is essentially setting up a double standard on exploration of truth, which results from examination of wide range of evidence, then through doubt (which is defined as "lack of conviction") make educated choices about certain beliefs or facts. If we don't have an opportunity to examine certain things through doubt, then how are those things to prove to be true?

I agree with you, but if someone is still doubting everything 20 or 30 years after he began his study of the Bible, and if he still has no certainty of the truth of the Bible, there is something definitely wrong.

Sincere questioning and seeking answers is one thing, but there are many who question and doubt just for sake of doubting, because they wrongly think doubt shows they're intelligent.

[fccool]

Quote:

I agree with you, but if someone is still doubting everything 20 or 30 years after he began his study of the Bible, and if he still has no certainty of the truth of the Bible, there is something definitely wrong.

Could I say that about your doubt of Muslim faith? Is your doubt insensible. Is it wrong? What facts is your doubt based on? Will any amount of time make you believe that Muslim faith is true?

Let's say you were born into Muslim culture, and by nature of it would end up practicing Muslim religion through various means of cultural construct and etc. Would you constant doubt be wrong?

Quote:

Sincere questioning and seeking answers is one thing, but there are many who question and doubt just for sake of doubting, because they wrongly think doubt shows they're intelligent.

Perhaps you think that these questions are adequately answered? From my experience, the difficult questions are dodged, ignored, or covered up with assumptions derived from impartial reasoning and view of the subject.

If one believes that Bible is 100% true and 100% Word of God, then every assumption will derive from that belief. There's no impartial view or verification, because impartiality must rest with a possibility of such belief to be false.

When you say

Quote:

20 or 30 years after he began his study of the Bible, and if he still has no certainty of the truth of the Bible, there is something definitely wrong

Could the wrong you are talking about be the dogmatic understanding, view, and interpretation of the Bible? You are quick to assume that the person is wrong, and not yourself.

Do you see my point?

[Igakusei]

Doubt isn't useful if you place restrictions on what you are allowed to doubt. John seems to think it's only okay as long as you come out of it with the same conclusions he has. It's almost as if the possibility that he might be wrong never even crosses his mind.

[John317]

I don't think it's a mark of intelligence or wisdom to still doubt everything by the time you've had 40+ years to think things through. There should be some things that you know for sure.

[fccool]

I don't think it's a mark of intelligence or wisdom to still doubt everything by the time you've had 40+ years to think things through. There should be some things that you know for sure.

Sure, I doubt many people today doubt that Australia exists. Even if you doubt it, there are flights that go there and back, there are photos from space that show that there is indeed a piece of land called Australia.

In terms of something that's so abstract as God, it becomes a matter of subjective experience, rather than collective agreement. I'd say that most of the humanity is in agreement that Australia exists. Why is that? Because of something called direct perception. We can call in objective in terms of objective evidence that proves its existence.

If Australia as a continent was a mere speculation based on hearsay of sailors who seen it a long time ago and recorder it in a book in rather vague terms, and if the rest of the world never seen or heard of it... then would you blame them for doubting of it's existence.

Do you believe that Atlantis existed as a continent? Would people be wrong to doubt its existence based on ancient hearsay, and without any direct evidence?

Such is the nature of doubt in God and Biblical record. In many cases, as defined by fundamental Christianity, faith is believing in something, even when the evidence points the other way, or if the evidence is minimal.

The irony is that people are attracted to Christian belief through certain concepts like, love, forgiveness, sin, righteousness, justice. Yet, these concepts then don't remain on conceptual level of ideals. These concepts are literalized, canonized via dogmas, and then used as a "test of faith", instead of these remaining conceptual ideals that are personified through certain Biblical narrative.

[Tom Wetmore]

How do you balance "questioning everything" with : "But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways."

By not mistakenly assuming immediately that questioning and doubting are the same thing.

I might also suggest that everyone reserve their comments until they have actually read the book.

[John317]

I agree with you, but if someone is still doubting everything 20 or 30 years after he began his study of the Bible, and if he still has no certainty of the truth of the Bible, there is something definitely wrong.

Originally Posted By: fccool

Could I say that about your doubt of Muslim faith?

Do you believe in the Muslim faith? Do you believe the Koran is inspired by God?

I don't, and the reason I don't is that I have studied it for a long time. I have certainty that it is NOT the truth. It contains some truth because much of it is based on the Bible, but its primary message about who God is and what He like, is false.

Originally Posted By: fccool

Is your doubt insensible.

I don't have doubt about it but certainty that it is error. It teaches contrary to the Bible. The Bible is the measuring stick of truth.

Originally Posted By: fccool

Is it wrong?

Yes.

Originally Posted By: fccool

What facts is your doubt based on?

On the teachings found in the Qur'an and as they are expounded by Islamic commentators.

Originally Posted By: fccool

Will any amount of time make you believe that Muslim faith is true?

Time itself won't make any difference, but I do keep studying it and intend to study it with a Muslim teacher at a local Mosque.

Originally Posted By: fccool

Let's say you were born into Muslim culture, and by nature of it would end up practicing Muslim religion through various means of cultural construct and etc. Would you constant doubt be wrong?

I know a Muslim who was recently baptized into Christ. He was born and grew up in Antioch Turkey, the same Antioch spoken of in Acts 13: 41-44. We talk a lot about the Qur'an and the Bible, as well as Ellen White's writings. He's now SDA, living in Bahrain.

My answer is that once I understood the truth of the Bible and saw how it contradicts the Qur'an, it wouldn't be wrong at all for me to doubt the truth of the Qur'an. There are many Muslims who do doubt it, and finally conclude that it is false.

[fccool]

I probably should not elaborate and make it easier for you to understand where other people are coming from:

1) Were there religions in the past that were made up by men in attempt to gain a certain human objective, whether population control, or betterment of humanity through certain ideals?

2) Did these religions write books, which extensively mixed certain history with supernatural explanation of these historic events?

3) Can it be POSSIBLE, i.e. conceivable, that both Judaism and Christianity were a compilation of certain idealizations of god-concepts that were personified through certain narratives? Is it possible that humans wrote these books based on ideal concepts of both past and present to guide their own culture through metaphors and expression of such belief... or just plainly for political purposes, as it was often done in antiquity?

Do you see any possibility of such scenario? If not, then why not?

[John317]

Tom, could you please write something about what attracts you to this book & give us a brief summary of the author's main thesis.

[John317]

Not sure who you're writing to. It appears you're writing to Tom.

[fccool]

Quote:

I don't have doubt about it but certainty that it is error. It teaches contrary to the Bible. The Bible is the measuring stick of truth.

Only objective truth can be the measuring stick of truth . For example, a statement "Australia exists" can't of itself be the measuring stick of truth which is the objective continent of Australia.

Truth is a fact, not faith or a belief. If Bible is the measuring stick of truth, then people would not be required to have faith. I'll give you some more examples so you can understand:

-Tom says he doesn't lie, therefore he doesn't.

-The company that makes motor oil says theirs is better than all the rest.

- God exists because the Bible says he does and the Bible is the word of God.

All of these are subjective claims to truth. These are not of itself truths, which are objective reality.

Do you understand what I'm saying here? Bible is a claim to truth, because it does not provide objective evidence to accompany it. It expects belief based on what people are reading and can't verify.

If they can indeed verify that Biblical claims are true, can you provide some means for them to verify that? What CONCRETE evidence would you advice people to look at in order to make have certainty (lack of doubt) that Biblical claims are true?

[fccool]

Not sure who you're writing to. It appears you're writing to Tom.

Sorry, bad habit. I was addressing you, but participation answers from other are welcome, which goes for any post I make. Forum is and should be a collective discussion.

[John317]

I don't think it's a mark of intelligence or wisdom to still doubt everything by the time you've had 40+ years to think things through. There should be some things that you know for sure.

Originally Posted By: fccool

Do you believe that Atlantis existed as a continent? Would people be wrong to doubt its existence based on ancient hearsay, and without any direct evidence?

It's neither morally right nor wrong to believe in Atlantis.

But if I understand the reason for your question, I would say that it would depend on the kind of evidence it is. If the evidence is the Bible, then clearly we could have confidence that it existed. But simply on the basis of ancient heresay, no, it wouldn't be very good evidence for its existence.

Originally Posted By: fccool

Such is the nature of doubt in God and Biblical record. In many cases, as defined by fundamental Christianity, faith is believing in something, even when the evidence points the other way, or if the evidence is minimal.

But yet the Bible is worthy of our trust and therefore I would believe the Bible even if everyone else in the world disbelieved it. I have learned that I can trust it, just as I have learned that I can trust certain people.

Originally Posted By: fccool

The irony is that people are attracted to Christian belief through certain concepts like, love, forgiveness, sin, righteousness, justice. Yet, these concepts then don't remain on conceptual level of ideals. These concepts are literalized, canonized via dogmas, and then used as a "test of faith", instead of these remaining conceptual ideals that are personified through certain Biblical narrative.

Are you talking about propositional truths that we find in the Bible, particularly in the New Testament?

[fccool]

Quote:

But yet the Bible is worthy of our trust and therefore I would believe the Bible even if everyone else in the world disbelieved it.

I would like to hear your reasons for you considering Bible more trustworthy than Quoran based on certain sound epistemological reasoning. Please elaborate a bit, but there should be certain rules of epistemology that I would like you to follow

1) You can't use subjective experience as a proof of objective truths. For example, "I've studied Quran and Bible is more true" is a subjective claim that's self-referrential.

2) The objective proof has to be outside of the source claims itself. "Tom says that he is not a liar" is not an objective proof. A record that matches Tom's language to the actual facts is a proper evidence that he is not a liar.

3) The claims can't reference something that we can't possibly verify. For example, I can claim that there's an invisible unicorn next to me that only I can see. This claim and support is irrelevant, when it comes to verifying objective truth. There may be, or there may not be one, but since no one but myself can see it, it disqualifies my statement as a proof of such being or event.

Can you show some objective evidence of Biblical claims given these epistemological guidelines?

[John317]

Quote:

I don't have doubt about it but certainty that it is error. It teaches contrary to the Bible. The Bible is the measuring stick of truth.

Only objective truth can be the measuring stick of truth . .... Truth is a fact, not faith or a belief. If Bible is the measuring stick of truth, then people would not be required to have faith.

The Bible is my objective truth.It hasn't always been but it certainly is now.

I don't expect it to be objective truth for everyone, but it should be the objective truth for those who claim to believe it to be the inspired Word of God.

Even though we believe the Bible to be objective truth, we still need faith because we haven't yet received the promises.

What I mean by objective truth is that the Bible is our guide for knowing the will of God and the truth about God. We know that anything that does not measure up to the Bible is false.

For instance, 1 Cor. 6: 9-10 says,

Quote:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, [10] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Now let us suppose somone teaches that people who are practicing these sins may be saved in God's kingdom without ceasing to practice them. In that case, these verses would be objective truth showing that the person is wrong who says those sins won't keep people out of heaven.

Originally Posted By: fccool

If they can indeed verify that Biblical claims are true, can you provide some means for them to verify that? What CONCRETE evidence would you advice people to look at in order to make have certainty (lack of doubt) that Biblical claims are true?

There is concrete evidence that the Bible is a trustworthy book.

That is why God has given us history, archeology, fulfilled prophecies, mathematics, various sciences, textual studies, and the evidence of personal experience, all of which show that the Bible is reliable.

[John317]

Quote:

But yet the Bible is worthy of our trust and therefore I would believe the Bible even if everyone else in the world disbelieved it.

I would like to hear your reasons for you considering Bible more trustworthy than Quoran based on certain sound epistemological reasoning.

Some such evidence would include history, archeology, fulfilled prophecies, mathematics, various sciences, textual studies, and the evidence of personal experience, all of which show that the Bible is reliable.

Do you personally believe that the Qur'an was revealed by the God of the Bible? Do you consider it as of equal authority as the Bible?

[Gerr]

Is it inappropriate to respond to a post just as it reads?

No way I can read every book/article that someone brings up in the forum. So, since you've read it, does he say anything different than your teaser post? Why would anyone question something if its veracity is accepted?

[fccool]

Quote:

The Bible is my objective truth.It hasn't always been but it certainly is now.

I don't expect it to be objective truth for everyone, but it should be the objective truth for those who claim to believe it to be the inspired Word of God.

I think you have a different understanding of "objective".

Dictionary definition for you:

Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

The truth or falsity of objective truths does not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons.

What does it depend on?

1) Objective Evidence

2) (not necessarily) but the universality of agreement on certain verifiable concepts. When one person telling you that you have an imprint on the back of your shirt, he may be pulling your leg. When 10 people are telling you the same thing, perhaps you should take it off and examine it?

Quote:

Even though we believe the Bible to be objective truth, we still need faith because we haven't yet received the promises.

The key word is BELIEVE, so you go a bit redundant there when you mention that those who believe still need faith. Faith is a form of belief. In term of definition, the only thing that separates the two concept is "understanding" and "trust" of person who believes.

Quote:

What I mean by objective truth is that the Bible is our guide for knowing the will of God and the truth about God. We know that anything that does not measure up to the Bible is false.

Know is not an appropriate term there. You believe that everything that not measure up to the Bible is false, and you believe it based on the claims of the Bible itself.

That's called a circular reasoning. There's plenty of reasons to distrust and doubt circular reasoning, unless it's proven by means of other evidence.