Why Are Christians Afraid To Doubt?

I like this analogy. It is interesting that Columbus went from a sort of blind faith landing up in the Americas, which was a whole New World to him as it was, but that his own preconceptions did not allow him to really see where he was.Columbus went back out again and again. He even came back to the Americas IIRC. But all of his exploring would have been useless if he had never questioned where he ended up.I believe that faith can take us to new worlds. I also believe that it is vital to know where 'there' is. I hate to knock off jar! but sometimes the only way of determining your location is to consult more than one map. I won't advocate a joy-ride in the dark with no destination (well, once in awhile) but you need to make sure you are where you think you are. After this, take a look around. Mountains? Caves? Rapids?

For the sake of clarity, is this thread about questioning the existance of God per se? I am thinking about the mystics of all religions. I *doubt* that they have ever felt they were 'there'.In fact, the closer one gets to this mysterious somewhere, the more doubts they have. I wonder if Rob has considered what would be his reaction to a spell of pure unmitigated spiritual aridity?Phat, if you are listening, I don't know that a person can stop themselves from doubting. The only thing they can do is stop themselves from learning. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Doubts, Ringo?They are some of my favourite study subjects. Assume they are all absolutely true, and then ask yourself if you want them to be. Ask yourself if they have meaning for you. That's doubt.

If you would just take it from here all Hell might be leashed.How and why is doubt essential to a Christian? And what is the nature of a beneficial doubt?

I don't think I said that what I want makes anything true.I said 'assume you aren't happy with the truth'.

Phat, forgive me, but I have now become lost as to how 'Why are Christians Afraid to Doubt' ties in with addictions? By taking a stand I think you are saying that you believe in the theoretical or demonstrable usefulness of these tools. I believe that Christians should take a stand about things that they have 'proved' to themselves. If something works for you, stick with it. Preaching relies on like-mindedness. Conversion requires an extreme compassion towards the listener. One need not deny the good of their own position by saying 'this doesn't work for everyone', but the way we 'preach' our ideas to others by giving them the conclusion rather than the logic, often requires way too much of a leap of faith on the part of the other.This is one thing that I am not overly fond of when it comes to the wording of the 12 steps.It is good to remember that many of those who participate in therapy groups are not of the same level of comprehension and self-ability as our good EvC members. Some addicitions have taken so much control of a person's life that it is hard to know when they had their last clear or rational thought, or had put anything into perspective. The fact that they land up in a group is not necessarily indicative of anything positive.STEP 1) WE ADMITTED THAT WE WERE POWERLESS OVER OUR ADDICTIONS AND COMPULSIVE BEHAVIORS, THAT OUR LIVES HAD BECOME UNMANAGEABLE.STEP 2) WE CAME TO BELIEVE THAT A POWER GREATER THAN OURSELVES COULD RESTORE US TO SANITY.STEP 3) WE MADE A DECISION TO TURN OUR LIVES AND OUR WILLS OVER TO THE CARE OF GOD.These steps will not work for everyone. What is beneath them may be solid psychological tools that would work. We all need to admit we have a problem. We need to acknowledge that there is a way to solve it, and then we need to be willing to put our lives into the hands of those we feel know what's good for us. In extreme cases, reliquishing of one's will is necessary. We put people into forcible detox programs.But guess what? Forcible control does not work unless a person 'owns' themselves. How many times have I seen these programs fail? How many times have I seen a person released and in days or months go back to the same behaviour? I would say that in my experience almost 100% of 'recovered' addicts have relapsed.This is where I think relinquishing one's will does not work UNLESS a person is also an 'adult'. It sounds like a contradiction. The Chrsitain 12 steps are a born-again experience for many. A fad that dies out. If you are already Christian, you should have had these same tools instilled in you. If they didn't work the first time, why will they the second time? Believing in something is meaningless without results.This is essentially the same as the morality conversation. If you don't 'own' your beliefs, they are pointless. Faith without works, maybe.Have faith...take a stand. But don't just stand! Look around. Is this faith really doing anything for you? Is it really making your life more livable or more meaningful? We can't just sit back on our idealistic haunches and feel justified for finding the 'solution'. What good is a solution if it hasn't solved anything? You know how I let my snake go lost again and again, the whole time knowing the solution to the problem? You know I whined over and again in chat groups about my 'problem'. My firm belief in the resolution of the issue is absolutely useless until I get up and 'put a lid on it'. There, you can see, that confidence is good. If God is your solution, by all means have confidence like a child. Then, seriously, get up and be an adult. If you put the lid on and it doesn't hold, look for another solution. That is the only way to move forward; by action. You can't own your ideals until you live them.

A fireman must go into the burning building to save someone. He is in 'rescuer mode' but he is relating to the rescued. Rob, I feel, is afraid you will become the 'victim' altogether.

Rob,I agree with you, if it is any consolation, in this way;A person does not have to doubt their faith if is provides intellectually satisfying and coherent sense. Christianity definitely has satisfying aspects. I have been reading Dom Chautard's book The Soul of the Apostolate and I do think that underneath the religious terms there lurks some good solid psycholgical tools for self-improvement.If I am ever capable of taking some of the Dom's advice in my own life, I know I will be not only a more religious person, but a happier person, a more content person. The lives of those around me will benefit.I know that I don't have to doubt all things for the pure insane sake of doubting. There are things which are personally knowable. They make sense to me and are useful. These things become for us an objective truth which we desire to 'preach' for the good of others.They are not things that are cotingent upon the details of the Crucifixion or the authorship of the gospels. Rather, the spiritual support that we find is what lends credence to the rest. My husband shocked me last night. He said;"When I find peace I will find God". He is not attracted by the way I try to coax him to church because of my own belief that finding God will bring peace. Just because I have put some pieces together and have found a beautiful coherency, I can not ask another to jump into this at my say-so. My 'truth' could be true, but if it is really so objective, it can be found via some back doors as well. The point is, that it is not always necessary to doubt everything that has personally verifiable merit in our lives. What of Old Earth and Young Earth and the many different Paul's? In my whole prior existence I had not known that some folks were arguing these things. It is entirely true that for many Christians their faith depends on some prophecy coming true, or some miracle, some blind following of books and periodicals, or finding no error in the Bible.No one has to rob us of the good stuff. Only the crutches. The questions should always be 'do we really know what we claim to believe?' and 'do we still believe it upon knowing?'. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Well, Ringo, I am finding this to be a profound and mystical statement, but then again I am dead-tired. I wanted to ask for an explanation, but maybe I will stick with my imagined one for now. I like it.How's that for some blind faith?

Ringo, I have to disagree. There is plenty of evidence if one is looking for it. Looking in the right places that is.What do you want?Do you want a collection of books that are accurate to the letter?Do you want a group of people that are no more than clones of each other? Do you want to see zombies in action preaching the gospel?You might get lucky there actually. If you want to see a community devoted to following the message of Christ, if you want to see mere humans rejoicing in the resurrection of the dead, if you want to see a love that binds all true Christians, you will see then that preservation of the message of God still continues. Not perfectly, not infallibly. It is preserved after-all by men. But indeed the best possible things which were ever put into the gospels are still preached and lived by simple people. The messages have lost nothing to those that understand them.One can doubt anything. Doubting the preservation of the message of Jesus is not high up on the list. There are definitely degrees of seperation from truth. I am waiting for someone, anyone, to address the point in the OP about 'when it is good to take a stand'.This going on about questioning is silly in a way. We are all taking a stand until we know better. We take a stand every day. It is part of doing what is best now. There is no way to judge what we do now except based on what we know now. Tomorrow we may have remorse, tomorrow we may learn. For now, I know that the message of Jesus still has meaning. I know that the gospels have meaning. I know that if anything in this world is preserved it is the good that can come from following the simple teachings of Christ. When this all becomes irrelevent and meaningless, then you may tell me that whatever was or could have or should have been there, is gone.

What is the message of God? A book? The one thing which I believe is that those who have gone sola sciptura have permeated the whole of Christian reputation to the extent that a written book is regarded as the only word of God. It is not. The Bible is a record. The message of God is a living tradition. I am not sure because of the phrasing what it is that you are saying. I apologize. God doesn't take steps to preserve a message so that it can spread and mutate and we can have religious wars? I don't know...Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

No. If there was a message there is no reason it HAS to be revealed everywhere. No one says that God's message, in order to be preserved, must reproduce itself in perfection in all adverse environments. It is a seed, which can be thrown upon barren earth, or fertile. There is no indication that for one plant to be reproduced, it must be able to thrive everywhere. The preservation of anything depends on there being the right environs. You can not prove that the right environs for God's work are doing anything except being preserved. The species may have evolved, it may not have all members of itself in perfect similarity, but it has not become extinct. Oh lordie, tell me about it crash will you? Don't forget that I am more Russian Orthodox than Roman Catholic. Don't forget that the Orthodox agree on every single major tenet of Roman Catholcism except Papal authority. Dont't forget that the vast majority of Christians do not techniaclly fall under the Protestant label. And hey, got something against the Greeks? Got something against the other hundreds of sects that fall under the same doctrinal beliefs as Catholics do? What if I have, and what if I have concluded that is does? Does this take away my ability to doubt? Why is it intellectually any different from saying that there have been many different explanations for a natural phenomenon, but only one will be correct? If there is a God, it stands to reason that only one religion will be correct.

Phat, the only thing that I don;t like about your approach of late, is this idea that what you believe is meaningless. What does it mean to take a stand if it doesn't mean to proclaim something as true? True to you doesn't count.You are growing a tad bit wishy washy. You are not seeking objective truth. This is little short of believing that your faith is made up, that your God is made up.I encourage you to strike a happy balance, Do not waiver in truth, but be compassionate towards others in their understanding.

Come on now. Preserved means saved. If it is one among thousands, this does not take away from the fact that this ONE is preserved. Not at all, but you're proving my point - it's ludicrous to assert God's message has descended through the ages with no confusion in the face of 11,000 separate Christian denominations with individual, contradicting ideas about what that message even is.Who said 'with no confusion'? What makes you think that there is a God but there is no Satan , and that Satan is not known for confusion? You cannot honestly and simply prove that there is no one message saved for all of time. You can believe there is not, and this is at your whim. It is not something that has any substance to it.The logical time to take a stand is when there is nowhere else to go. Your arguments are not conclusive, and maybe you should question this.Edited by AdminPhat, : fixed quote... I think. :?

Whoa, I wasn't in on any crowding out conversation! I am sure I don't have to remind you that this 'crowding' is EXACTLY what was predicted by Jesus anyway. The road that leads to damnation is wide and traveled by many, but the road to eternal life is narrow and found by few. Why should I expect otherwise? Someone right now is distinguishing it, if it exists. You have to prove that it does not. No prob. I am likewise not under any obligation to prove that many choices don't allow that only one answer is possible. The only thing that needs to be proven is that the ONE answer is not existing. Can you? It doesn't matter how many choices there are! Is this supposed to be easy? Did you ever expect a pathway all laid out with road marks?