To walk the path of life honestly one must enter the dark forest of questions.
You may or may not come out of it alive. But you will certainly come out changed.
I encourage you to enter. I have found that there is actually an abundance of life there.
In fact, I have made my home here.
Do you need to talk? Just email me to set up an appointment.
Check out my books and my art.
My name is David Hayward, and I am the nakedpastor. I am a graffiti artist on the walls of religion.
I made my home there for a long while myself, David. I left it in 2005.
At the far, far end of the wood, the trees (questions) start to clear away until finally you stand at the edge of a cliff.
Look into the abyss below,
take a deep breath and exhale slowly,
spread your arms,
close your eyes
and lean forward…
TGM made my eyes water there….
I think that temperament has a lot to do with how well we do in the forest of questions. Parallels with those who leave their own countries to live in foreign lands seem obvious: I just did a little post on this phenomena – “The Awkward Unchurched”
In light of the way different temperaments handle transitions, consultants like David Hayward can be most helpful for many folks.
I like this one David. (Well I like most all of your work…lol)
I fully entered the forest of questions about 10 years ago I guess. It was terrifying for a fundy like me. I do not know how long I will dwell amidst the uncertainty, but I do know my life is forever changed from the experience. Now that I am used to the place I am finding that it is really quite lovely. I actually am finding not just freedom…but peace in the questions themselves. Somehow it all seems so much more honest to me than the rigid answers from my past.
It’s actually pretty dang crowded in here.
I often take a jog thru the forest of questions to see if there is anyone on the trails who might need some help. There are many who have made their homes in these woods and many who never leave them because they feel more comfortable with those others who they feel have all the qwestions rather than live with the people who think they have all the answers.
Maybe it could be called “The Forest of Doubt”
The forest is exactly where the Creator wants you to be. He wants you to not only seek answers but to accept them from His infinite knowledge and wisdom when He provides them for you.
But one thing cannot be avoided. The forest is infinite and we are not. The Creator is infinite and we are not. We do not get in trouble by willingly entering the forest. We get in trouble by believing that there are answers to the infinite outside the Creator and only One who is infinite.
Our desire to learn and gain answers outside the Creator who put that thought and desire within us is nothing more than our trying to be our own authority and answer. That has failed us since the beginning of time and will continue to fail and frustrate because we are not Him.
@Gary,
This is why I have such a strong regard and deep respect for people like yourself.
You came from a place that offered easy, ready-made answers and a comforting shield from the (often painful) consequences of living in reality. Not everyone who enters the forest takes the leap into the abyss to become an atheist and that’s okay. It doesn’t matter. What does matter is that you understand that you don’t have all the answers and neither does anyone else…including atheists. It’s empowering in a way that unquestioning adherence to dogma can never be.
Wow! I know this place. Still here after ten years myself. Love it!! To enter is truly the doorway to freedom, not for the weak. Hats of to all the brothers who dare.
@Phil,
I accept that this is what you believe, but how do you know that? What do you base your last comment on? Can you refer me to some source that demonstrates to me that this is what your god wants? If such a source (or sources) exist, why is there such confusion and disagreement over the nature of this god and what it wants?
Everything I’ve read in the Bible (and yes, I’ve read it…seven times) indicates a god far, far different than the one you describe.
I can state without reservation that if the god of the bible was such as you described it would have been a lot more difficult for me to leave theism.
Perhaps this is a god as you wish him to be?
@marcie,
That’s because the door is an entrance only and you know that before going in. There is no going back, short of a self-induced lobotomy.
You can stay in the forest and camp out for as long as you want or need or you can push forward…
but you can never go back.
Refreshing! After leaving religion, the maze of many dead ends. Praise God, praise God! For the courage to go.
Godless:
At the end of the day we believe what we want to believe. We make that choice. I have believed that God exists, that the Bible is the most accurate and trustworthy book of antiquity, and I believe that Jesus’s claims about Himself are 100% true. I believe this worldview is backed up by a free and without prior prejudiced view of science, math, archaeology, philosophy, and logistics. I also believe this worldview to be correct because in my personal experience I have had intimate fellowship with God and have experienced both His encouragements and His discipline … and He has NEVER been wrong yet.
You ask me for proof yet you offer none of your claims that you were ever taught that the world was simple or had pat answers for life’s “realities.” That is not my experience with faith for the past 19+ years and that is not the way it has been presented to me.
I can tell you that the God of Scripture is exactly as I described Him and He welcomes your questions. You just have to be willing to accept His answers. That is where free-will comes in.
TGM: I did that years ago and found just as many questions at the bottom of the cliff when I made the soft landing. I’ve learned to live into the questions. Whatever works.
@Phil,
Thanks for the non-answer.
Now, tell me: What claims did I just make?
Please quote me specifically what claims i made that you require proof for.
@Shel,
I’ve yet to land.
It’s been a wonderful flight for me and I’m not done until I’ve breathed my last breath.
@Phil,
You said “I can tell you that the God of Scripture is exactly as I described Him…”.
I believe in God and in Christ…and yet I totally reject the validity of this statement. In fact, to presume this level of knowledge reveals you to me as one I would not trust with questions of profound importance. You make so many claims that are based upon your own experience…as if that alone should be proof enough.
You strike me as like the man in a dark cave who lights a candle and for the first time can see the outline of the walls and declares He knows the boundaries of the universe because he can see them, touch them, “experience” them.
Whatever the true nature of God is…one thing I can tell YOU…is that He most definitely is NOT “exactly” as you have described Him.
the forest of the questions! A great place to hide when running from the zombie hoard.
I love the symbolism of zombies that you were putting up a few months ago David. Think that those cartoons would be served by this one. What are zombies but hoards of brainless, unquestioning people seeking to devour those with brains. Where would zombies not be able to go? The forest of questions.
Bravo! Luke.
Phil: Whether I agreed with you or not aside, I was ready to accept your sincerity and lack of denial or blind allegiance, except for this:
“I believe this worldview is backed up by a free and without prior prejudiced view of science, math, archaeology, philosophy, and logistics.”
Seriously? That these fields can be wrong I’ll even accept – but that math itself, all philosophy, all science, archeology even(!) not only don’t contradict but *support* your worldview… You’re living in a fantasy.
I hate to say it, but every person has been born with brains and with questions.
Faith is putting trust in the other. It is the foundation of relationship. From there we can freely explore all our questions, even in vehement disagreement, if necessary.
Godless: Here is what you can “document” for me
You said: “Everything I’ve read in the Bible (and yes, I’ve read it…seven times) indicates a god far, far different than the one you describe.
I can state without reservation that if the god of the bible was such as you described it would have been a lot more difficult for me to leave theism.
Perhaps this is a god as you wish him to be?”
1) What is your educational level in studying the Bible? Where/How have you studied it? What exactly in the Bible makes you believe that God is described differently than I have?
2) What evidence do you have to accuse me of creating an image of God that I wish it to be? What makes you question the sincerity of my understanding? Evidence please.
You did ask.
@Phil,
Tell you what. I’ll give you your answers, but I’m not going to hijack this thread any more than I already have.
I’ll leave a comment on this thread with a link to my post on my blog.
I’m running my own business with 15 employees to deal with, so I’ve got to run now, but you’ll get a full response in the next day or so.
Hold onto your butt…
Christine if you ever want to have a real conversation about these fields without rancor and name calling and put downs I would be glad to have them with you. Again, and let me be more specific, science, mathematics and philosophy give great evidence to the existence of God. Archaeology give undeniable evidence that the Bible is the most trustworthy document of antiquity and there is nothing even remotely close to it, and it gives great evidence to the existence of Jesus as well as some of the Bible’s claims about Him. Last, logistics and literary-critical evidence gives great credence that the most logical conclusion about the Biblical claims concerning Jesus are that they are all in fact true. If any of that is of interest to you I stand ready to dialog about it. God’s peace!
Godless: Dare I say that “I’m holding on?” lol
OK Phil, since you seem to believe that educational study is the only thing that qualifies one to have an opinion on any given subject;
What is your education level in studying science, mathematics, philosophy, and archaeology? I am pretty sure you do not have the required expertise to speak for each of these sciences with the authority you presume.
Gary I must apologize if that’s the impression you got. I responded to Godless’ claim that by his read of Scripture he didn’t understand God to be the way I understand Him to be. I asked him about his background so I can better understand on what basis he is making his biblical claims.
As for me I have a B.S. (don’t say it!) from Cornell and a Masters in Divinity. I am an avid reader of the sciences and philosophy as well so I believe that with my educational and life’s background I can speak intelligently on these subjects but certainly not exhaustively and stand ready to discuss evidence(s) for and against with anyone willing to dialog without rancor or name calling or nastiness.
Knowledge puffs up but ahh sweet wisdom brings humility. Its not earned through works.
Thanks Phil, I think I understand where you are coming from.
As for me I have a B.S. (I won’t say it…but often true…grin) in Business and an M.S. in Management. I too am an avid reader of the sciences, though I suspect I have not arrived at exactly the same conclusions you have as to what evidence they provide. (Though I do believe science points to God) I am also a student of the bible and have spent 25 years teaching adults in a church setting. My background in education and leadership has given me a focus as much on a person’s thought processes and reasoning as on the evidence itself. For instance, when a person makes a sweeping declaration that so many sciences (of which they do not have expertise) support their views (undeniably?) then I come to the conclusion that they are operating from a position of personal bias rather than genuine objective reasoning. Throw in a little defensiveness along the way and the picture becomes pretty clear.
I read this parable earlier today written by Herbert Brokering in the early 70s:
Once there was a church
that was looking for better questions.
Now every time they get together,
they have the feeling
something important is going to happen.
If it ever didn’t,
someone would be sure to ask
why.
Agreed Gary!
The Forest of Questions is dark only for those who avoid it out of fear. For everyone who enters, it is a place of light.
@Doug,
Agreed…it was for me. In fact just realizing that NOT knowing the answer is ok…can be the most illuminating of all.
I am interested, Phil. Genuinely. Bring it on.
Let’s start with philosophy – so many perspectives, no real conclusions. So how can that be said to support any particular worldview?
Science in general. We’ve got a problem right off the bat with creation. Are we taklking about supporting a worldview with a literal bible? Because, if yes, problem and if no, archeaology would really have nothing to do with it, then.
Math – I’m at a lost. How does math provide us with evidence of God? Genuinely curious, here.
Finally, logistics and literary-critical evidence. Do you mean “logistics”, cause I don’t get the connection. Literary criticism can only point to what a document meant to the person who wrote it – I don’t see how it can be evidence that what they meant to communicate was actually true.
So, let me have it.
Christine you sound like you’re ready to start a fight rather than a dialog. Let’s both try to tone it down just a notch. I promise we can enjoy a truly educational dialog with one another. Send me your email address and I’ll send you some good stuff that I’ve put together. It’ll be a good starting point.
my email address is phildilernia@yahoo.com
Thanks!
There’s something very interesting that happens on this blog Phil, and it almost always comes from more conservative commentators… when things get too hot they request to have the discussion outside of my blog through personal email. Curious to me. It sounds like, if you don’t mind me saying, an evangelistic strategy.
Not at all Naked … it seems to me very difficult to have lengthy discussions of researched science, math, philosophy, archaeology, etc. etc. on a blog that by its very nature is fraught with personal biting comments (like yours) and pithy responses. If someone is well thought out and wants to engage serious thought (both ways) then blogs aren’t the best place for that in my opinion. To me, it can turn into a Bill Maher dialog where the wise-ass meant to belittle comments are substituted for in depth analysis and nuanced thoughts.
Do you have on this blog the capability to “attach” documents? If so then I would be more than happy to do so. I didn’t see where that was possible, if I missed it I apologize.
And what do you feel was “too hot?” That is kind of funny really when you get down to it. What do you think that Christine said that was “too hot” to handle? Rather than look at others who believe differently than you do with a prejudiced eye why not take them at their word until their word is proven to be untrustworthy? I gave Christine what I feel were well thought out and valid reasons. Do you feel that she is incapable of being able to defend her views?
Hmmmm … maybe I should say that your prejudiced strategy is to belittle and question the integrity of someone you have never met or spoken to rather than deal with real information? I could say that you’ve learned from Bill Maher very well! lololol I say these last things to demonstrate the absurdity of making character judgments against someone I do not know. It’s ludicrous.
@Phil
Read my last post to you again. Judging by your continued passive aggressive defensive posturing I would say you missed my point entirely.
Again knowledge puffs up my friend? To what end?
Turning tables a sad state for all involved every turn?
Wow. The large number of posts at the beginning all gathered together with David’s post, provided some really intersting reading, and seeing how the different perspectives were viewing things.
The remark of the ‘Forest of Doubt’ had me thinking we could almost do a re-write of the Pilgrim’s Progress, from an open and questioning point of view!
Phil, I had no problem with your first post, til the very end where you said, “Our desire to learn and gain answers outside the Creator who put that thought and desire within us is nothing more than our trying to be our own authority and answer. That has failed us since the beginning of time and will continue to fail and frustrate because we are not Him.”
The idea that anything we can learn or gain answers to, is ‘outside’ the creator, is in many senses false. Even when I was a believing and practicing Christian, I realized that regardless of their beliefs, doctors still saved lives, made discoveries, scientists still learned more about the world we live in… the idea that all knowledge has to be attached to the ‘creator’ or it is somehow tainted or suspect, just doesn’t pan out when you look at it logically.
I find that when you speak about your faith and your experiences, in regards to yourself, I am far more comfortable in hearing what you have to say… when you bring your beliefs and experiences to a level that it is ultimate truth and applies to everyone, in regards to us, the fellow blogger/responders… it rankles. I have lived in church circles too long… ALL the ‘true believers’ TM believe that “I can tell you that the God of Scripture is exactly as I described Him” is a common comment, and when the great true believers disagree, then they get into theological fights over who is the greater ‘true believer’ to listen to. The vast differences within Christianity is enough to say that no one knows God to that degree. As a group, Christians and others may come to understandings on love or compassion or certain universal concepts… but even they wouldn’t say that the ‘god’ they know is exactly as they describe him… in part because you can’t have that kind of universality without also haveing the humility to know you only have partial comprehension in the face of an infinite, and ultimately unknowable, god.
TGM… I hadn’t seen you around for a bit. Nice to see you back around. I always appreciate your input… you make me think through atheism from a very different perspective than I have been use to. By the way, the image of the cliff?… to me it wasn’t an answer, but there was an interesting experience in re-surfacing after such a deep plunge… and I’ve found that the abyss wasn’t the abyss…it’s just another part of the map… different than the woods, but with its own questions. I think, maybe (I’m still working on the whole ‘unbelief’ system…there is far more dogma on ‘unbelief’ than I thought possible, and I’m only recently becoming aware of the amount of it) the abyss is the unknown that we move away from, or, don’t move into… once we do go there, it is not an unknown, and therefor can no longer be an abyss. The gaping chasm has meaning when we actually explore it, and find out it isn’t a gaping chasm… it is a woods, or a cliff, or an ocean, or any number of things… we can’t see beyond the horizon, so only when we move towards the unknown, can we see what is beyond our initail view.
um…okay, babble overload. I really should force myself to never post after a certain point at night, I lose what little focus and conciseness I have. Apologies to all.
Marcie…to what end indeed!
Well spoken.
Nancy…. Thank you! I believe god has created all kinds of people of all kinds of intellectual abilities (I work with disabled children). Seems right in saying that, if god loves all finding and discovering god should not hinge on our ability to study the book,education,or the like. My answers are brief and simple, although I could engage with the best of them i will never again.
Sorry Nancy lol my point being you word picture was profound. More then any scholar could describe with a thousand words and all the scriptures to back it up =) keep it simple friends truly is the key!
BTW Nancy – “babble” on any time as far as I am concerned. I love your comments.
Gary:
I didn’t misunderstand your post … I got it … you put me down. I just chose not to respond in kind. I believe you mistake “responding” to questions and accusations with “defensiveness.” I don’t equate them. To ask someone something or accuse someone of something and then say that person is being defensive for providing a direct response to a direct question/accusation is not defensiveness. At least not as far as I understand the term.
Marcie:
You said: “The idea that anything we can learn or gain answers to, is ‘outside’ the creator, is in many senses false. Even when I was a believing and practicing Christian, I realized that regardless of their beliefs, doctors still saved lives, made discoveries, scientists still learned more about the world we live in… the idea that all knowledge has to be attached to the ‘creator’ or it is somehow tainted or suspect, just doesn’t pan out when you look at it logically.”
I agree with you that doctors save lives, etc etc. 100%. In my understanding of the world all of that logic comes directly from the hand of He who created all that knowledge and created us who has the ability to process that knowledge. I don’t believe, nor do I think I inferred, that any knowledge we gain is “tainted or suspect” so therefore I would agree that a statement like that would not make sense logically. However, I do believe, that while knowledge is not necessarily tainted, I also believe that much of what we “know” isn’t exhaustive knowledge. On the other hand, I don’t believe that it is wrong to make strong statements. It seems that when I’ve said that God is as I’ve described Him that somehow is being taken that I have exhaustive knowledge of God. That of course would be ludicrous and let me apologize if I’ve communicated that heresy.
However, God has given us the ability to desire and process information so for me to say that God is “love” or God is “perfect” or God desires our “hearts and obedience” or God desires that we treat others with respect, etc etc etc I believe that I can make those statements and not be taken to be saying that I am perfect, exhaustive in knowledge, infallible, or any other such thing. No more than anyone else should be accused of such things when they make statements of facts “as they know them.”
Hope that helps somewhat …
No Phil, I like most here can tell the difference. (For instance…you felt my response was merely a “put down” rather than an explanation as to why I felt you were not being objective in your reasoning)
We are also pretty good at spotting back peddling when we see it.
Oh … I wasn’t aware that it was “I” against “we.” If you don’t consider your biting comments as “put downs” then so be it. I see it differently and if I did it in return you would probably feel the same way.
Can you share with me why you feel my reasoning isn’t objective? Is it less objective than yours? If so, why?
Can you tell me where I’ve back peddled? I’m not sure what piece of information that I’ve put forward that I’ve needed to back peddle on?
Thanks for your help …
Sure I’ll answer your questions.
I stated pretty clearly why I felt you were not being objective already, but I’ll recap. You claimed a large number of sciences not only backed your views, but even used the term “undeniably”. No problem yet…I also believe science supports my views. (Though the term “undeniably” is beyond my claims) But when you then challenge another’s comment on the basis of a lack of higher education in the field, while clearly not having the same level of education you expect of others in your own claims, that is a clear loss of objectivity.
As for back peddling; you said…
“It seems that when I’ve said that God is as I’ve described Him that somehow is being taken that I have exhaustive knowledge of God. That of course would be ludicrous and let me apologize if I’ve communicated that heresy.”
This represents a revision of your original comment where you stated that “I can tell you that the God of Scripture is exactly as I described Him”. Wise of you to drop the “exactly” in your revision, since the inclusion of that word was what several of us challenged. This is what is called back peddling. It is re-casting an indefensible statement in such a way as to change its meaning rather than to simply admit a mistake.
As for your defensiveness…it is still on display. Hey…I get defensive sometimes too. I’ll be the first to admit it. But when I do…I immediately cast my position in a negative light and the potential influence of it is largely negated.