I doubt. That’s true!

Doubts, questions, uncertainties, skepticisms face every honest enquirer after truth. The capacity to doubt is one of God’s greatest gifts to us. Without doubt there would be no discovery, no progress; we would all simply accept what we’re told, and live comfortably with the status quo.
We don’t have to believe in any one else’s concept of God. Faith is not worthwhile if we are afraid to challenge our beliefs sometimes.

The Indian philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti said: “Truth is a pathless land. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, nor through any philosophical knowledge or psychological technique.’’

One of the lesser known Biblical Proverbs puts it this way: “If you scream for insight and call loudly for understanding, if you pursue it like you would money, and search it out as you would hidden treasure, then the Lord will be awesome to you, and you will come into possession of the knowledge of God.’’


34 thoughts on “I doubt. That’s true!

  1. Quote: “Truth is a pathless land. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, nor through any philosophical knowledge or psychological technique.’’

    There is no two paths to god the same. Each path is strictly individual. God is not found in church, books or any other worldly place, but in the heart of the seeker. It was always there waiting to be discovered, to be remembered. God never leaves or forsakes. Ever.


      • Actually there is a single path to God.
        Jesus called it the “straight and narrow way”. The only individualistic aspect of this path to God is the way we travel upon it.

        Jesus taught the individual aspect of travelling on this path by telling us that each one of us must take his/her own cross and follow Jesus. Given that everyone has a different life experience, it is logical that each person’s cross is slightly different from everyone else’s.


      • Who said that the straight and narrow path was achieved through the Seventh day Adventist Church only?


      • Bryan we’ve been through this before,
        If the adventists, charismatics, pentecostals, catholics or any other christian sect’s doctrines are in harmony with Scripture, I would be proud to call myself one of them.


      • Actually I do appreciate the difference between walking the straight and narrow and the way each individual carries his/her cross upon this way.
        But what your indian friend is preaching is a way whereby the ‘straight and narrow way’ is not distinguished from the ‘broad way that leads to destruction’.


      • So what is davinci saying exactly, by calling Adventists, Charismatics, Pentecostals, Catholics et al, Sects?

        Cult, Sect, Denomination

        “We use terms so loosely that we often fail to communicate. Since affiliating myself with Churches of Christ in 1978 I have often heard the mantra, “We are neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jew.” (This is the title of a tract written by Batsell Barrett Baxter and Carroll Ellis). During the almost 30 years of my journey within Churches of Christ I have often heard us define ourselves in similar, negative terms: “We are not a cult, nor a sect, nor a denomination … we are simply Christians.”

        Being an outsider (I wasn’t “raised in the Lord’s Church”) I dare not criticize too quickly. But, now having almost 30 years of history with the Churches of Christ, perhaps I can offer my perspective.

        First, we must be something. It is impossible to define oneself in negative terms forever. Even a short-term effort at such a feat will result in precisely what we now have within Churches of Christ: a chronic identity crisis.

        Second, we must play by the rules of civilized humanity. According to the accepted definition of the terms, we’re either a sect or a denomination. Only the fiercest of our critics would call us a cult and, even then, he or she would be wrong in his or her assessment. We simply do not fit the definition of a cult. But, one way or another, we must decide whether we are a sect or a denomination and be at peace with ourselves.

        Cult – A Working Definition.

        A cult is a dangerous and authoritarian religious group usually led by a single, charismatic leader. A cult will often employ methods of mind control and fear to enforce behavioral expectations. Many cults in the USA are classified as mind control cults or doomsday cults. A cult often uses deceptive practices and dangerous psychological pressure techniques such as brainwashing to retain member loyalty.

        Sect – A Working Definition.

        A sect is a Christian group that sees itself as the only True Church because of the particular doctrinal positions it holds or religious practices it observes. Any person or any group not agreeing with these doctrinal positions or religious practices is determined to be an apostate church and, therefore, invalid, non-Christian, and not a part of God’s Kingdom on earth.

        A sect tends to be very exclusive and isolationistic in its posture toward the larger Christian community. Furthermore, a sect tends to deny all ties to and influences from the historical developments within Christianity in general (“we’re the church that Jesus established on Pentecost” is a commonly heard assertion). A sect, by definition, has neither acknowledged unity nor practiced fellowship with other Christian groups.

        Sects tend to emphasize the areas of disagreement that they have with the greater Christian community. Such disagreements preclude any perceived sense of actual commonality they may share with other Christians. Normally a sect emphasizes its own distinctive doctrinal positions or religious practices as being the “defining characteristics of the True Church.” Such an emphasis prohibits the sectarian mindset from entering into open fellowship with other “Christians” for fear of tainting the True Church and thereby losing its favorable status with God.

        Denomination – A Working Definition.

        A Denomination is an established Christian group that has distinctive doctrinal positions on various issues but sees itself as merely a smaller, identifiable sub-part of the larger whole. In other words, the Body of Christ is made up of all who belong to Jesus. Most denominationalists acknowledge that knowing precisely who belongs to Jesus Christ is humanly impossible (the “True Church of Christ” is invisible to human eyes). Furthermore, most practice an “err-on-the-side-of-inclusion” posture toward others who acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus.

        A Denomination believes that its particular group, with its unique history and doctrinal particularities, is clearly distinguishable from other Christian groups in terms of doctrinal beliefs and religious practices; however, a Denomination views itself as merely a unique part of the larger whole. Many Denominations practice open unity and fellowship with one another, emphasizing the areas of commonality that they share, while retaining their own distinctive characteristics.”

        Life in a New Millennium
        Reflections from a Dazed Sojourner

        What about Movements? I thought the Charismatics and Pentecostals were Movements.

        Wikipedia: “A Christian movement is a theological, political, or philosophical interpretation of Christianity that is not generally represented by a specific church, sect, or denomination.”


      • Oops! Seems like the network is not working properly today. Here is the extract on cults again. Because it was levelled at the Seventh day adventists a few years ago by other “denominations”, the Sevies came out with this defence. You will notice how artificial the definitions now become when one needs to compare Scripture with Scripture to determine who is right or not.
        1. Single, powerful human leader who becomes the cult’s “Messiah.” The official dogma of the Catholic Church makes the pope a single, very powerful human leader. The teaching is that the pope has the power to forgive sins, can lock and unlock heaven, and is the representative of Jesus Christ on earth. Thus he does take on attributes that the Bible ascribes to Jesus the Messiah.
        2. The cult leader’s word, or teachings of the cult, become absolute truth, overshadowing the teachings of the Bible. This second mark is standard Catholic dogma: Tradition is authoritative as well as Scripture. Tradition can even define absolute truth. When tradition and the Scriptures disagree, tradition usually wins. For instance. the Bible says that we only have one mediator (1 Tim. 2:5). What about priests, saints, and Mary? On this point, tradition wins.
        3. Each cult uses pressure tactics to coerce members into submission. While Bible prophets rebuked, the Catholic Church has often resorted to force. Somewhere between 50 and 150 million people were put to death during the Middle Ages at the behest of the Catholic Church. Pretty serious pressure, wouldn’t you say?
        4. Each cult denies the central truth of the gospel that Jesus is the divine Son of God without beginning or ending. They deny that His death has provided salvation… for the entire human race. As a result, salvation is earned by adherence to the teachings of the cult rather than accepting Christ and following Him. While it is true that the Roman Catholic Church upholds the deity of Christ, sometimes questions have been raised regarding whether it also upholds the biblical teaching that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. (1 Jn. 4:2, 3; 2 Jn. 1:7). Was He a real man with a humanity like ours, except without sin? Many feel that the doctrine of the immaculate conception insulates Christ from being “made like unto His brethren” “in all things, ” and therefore being able to be “tempted in all points like as we are” (Heb. 2:17; 4:15).

        Regarding Christ’s death providing salvation for us, consider the following insightful quotation from Conway’s The Question Box:

        “‘In the economy of salvation the sinner is bound to give personal satisfaction; if he does not, his lot is damnation. Christ was not punished instead of the sinner, nor against His own will as sinners are punished; by the holiest of free acts He bore the penalties of sin in order to merit for the sinner a means of satisfying which lay beyond human power. His vicarious satisfaction is not the transfer of punishment from the unjust to the just, but the transfer of the merits of the just to the unjust.’ (Wilhelm-Scannell, ‘A Manual of Catholic Theology,’ vol. ii. p. 188)” (63)

        Thus official Catholic dogma states that rather than Christ dying in our place or purchasing our pardon, He instead provided a way for us to pay our own debt of sin which we would not have had otherwise.

        And then there is the teaching of indulgences, whereby an individual spends less time in purgatory because of merit he has received from the Catholic Church in exchange for certain works.
        5. Cults often urge their converts to leave their families. Many have left family and friends to pursue a life of celibacy and exclusion. More than this, sometimes the Roman Church has kidnapped young children from their parents.

        You might think that I am now descending to depths of slander and innuendo to join the contributors to this video, but let me share with you one particular incident that hit the newspapers in 1855. Seven-year-old Edgar Mortara, son of Girolamo Mortara Levi of Bologna, when but eleven months old, was “baptized” by a servant girl. When the authorities found out about this Jewish boy’s “baptism,” he was taken from his home, with only a 24-hour delay given for the family’s sake.

        The Jews of Bologna, a city in the Papal States, and therefore a city directly ruled by the pope, raised a considerable amount of money for the ransom of the boy, all to no avail.

        When he arrived in Rome, he was baptized a second time, implying that the first baptism wasn’t any good anyway! He was catechized and eventually became a priest.

        Piedmont, France, England, and America were outraged. Emperor Napoleon III insisted that the pope return the boy to his parents, but nothing was ever done. (R. De Cesare, The Last Days of Papal Rome 176-179


      • Oh davinci, ( re your post of 28th at 13.31)

        Now you too are mis-quoting Catholic teaching. You state that –

        ‘Many feel that the doctrine of the immaculate conception insulates Christ from
        being made like unto His brethren in all things, and therefore being able to be tempted in all points like as we are. (Heb. 2:17; 4:15).’

        I explain again that the doctrine of the ‘Immaculate Conception’ declared as absolute and binding on all Catholics by Pope Pius IX in 1854, refers exclusively to the teaching that Mary at the moment of her own conception within the womb of her mother, was granted ‘pre-Redemption’ from Original Sin. It is a strictly Catholic term, and can NEVER apply to or be associated directly with the Virgin Conception or the Virgin Birth. Protestants generally just cannot get that clear.



      • Ok Rian,
        And on what Scriptural Authority did pope Pius make that statement? Give me the Bible chapter and verse. Or was it perhaps the tradition that whatever the pope says, it is the word of God?


      • Ah davinci, re your post 30th, 20.54pm to quote re Immaculate Conception —
        <<'On what Authority did pope Pius make that statement? Give me the Bible chapter and verse. Or was it perhaps the tradition that whatever the pope says, it is the word of God? davinci,'

        Just to remind you, that I'm neither a Catholic or any sort of Christian believer. I dont accept any of the four essential doctrines about Mary in their literal meaning.

        Of course there is NO Scriptural verse or authority for that teaching about the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was for centuries a tradition in the Church that Mary was 'immaculately conceived', then at last to be 'Infallibly' defined by the Pope.
        And neither you or I would accept that any of the Popes carry divine authority to create or uncover new doctrines.

        But all I was saying there, was that the term Immaculate Conception has no legitimate use or meaning other than in the Catholic doctrine about Mary's origin. It is historically, theologically and academically incorrect to relate it to the Conception and Birth of Jesus. You can use any other term or phrase for the latter, but not that one. If you doubt what I say, then look up the term I.C. in any good encyclopaedia.

        Cheers Rian.


    • Quite right, fossall. ‘Truth’ and ‘facts’ are birds of a different feather.

      An old Chinaman I used to talk to when I was in my early teens used often to remind me that: ‘Them that asks don’t get. Them that don’t ask don’t want.’

      ie. Decide your connection to the scheme of things and let it happen as it will. We’re here for the ride, not to run the roller-coaster
      …..each one of us, alone.


      • 🙂
        Not sure how many are fluent in physics and how our senses actually work. It is still true that many people actually believe their eyes see a picture, their ears hear a sound etc. According to physics and science, we don’t either. What enters the eye is a electro magnetic wave, which excites the retina, which then sends a electrical signal to specific place in our brain and connects us to the mind, which interprets the signal as image. Same happens with all other physical senses. neither communicates directly, but sends electrical signals for interpretation.
        Sorry about the long winded explanation, here is the reason for it. How can we be sure we all see, feel, hear smell taste the same thing if it depends on interpretation? How can there be an objectivity? Doesn’t it say rather clearly that all things in the physical are purely subjective? If so, isn’t it rather clear, that each of us travels distinctly individual journey? Even Jesus said to pickup YOUR cross and follow him. Do as I did in other words your way.
        The true spiritual journey is lonely journey. Unless we connected to the spirit, we really on our own.
        Few words about pride and prejudice. Lets look at disagreement. If someone disagree with what I just said, I could be offended. I say here that offence is taken, not given. Most do get offended. You know that funny feeling inside when one reads or hears opposition to one views. This is the natural reaction of our Egos. It takes a very mature and convinced person spiritually, not to be offended. Don’t get me wrong, we mostly don’t voice our offenses, we just given them few thoughts and judge the person who opposed our views as an ignorant. Our mind is then happy and satisfied.
        I thought it would be good to remind ourselves of this without offence.


      • Quote: “Now can someone please tell me how not to let jerks get to me? 😯 ”

        Jerks is judgement. Does it not say judge not lest you be judged? There is an old Chinese proverb; it says “What you judge you will become.”
        I found it quite true in my case. :)-


      • I agree Bryan.

        And fossall,

        I respectfully disagree with you in regards to being told that as a Christian I somehow cannot judge others. God has given me a brain and the ability to discern between right and wrong and I believe I would do Him (and myself) a disservice if I did not use this faculty for the greater good. What is wrong and of which I am guilty of sometimes, is retaliating, because two wrongs do not make a right.

        My husband was telling me about a business associate who treats him and everyone else contemptuously. The result of receiving his demanding emails and phone calls is to put everyone on edge and tempers are fraying. But what came to light through a mutual friend was that he was complaining about the way he was being unfairly treated in return. But he was totally mystified as to why. What came to light was that apparently he is totally unaware of the way he comes across and hubby conceded that treating him like he treats them is obviously not the right way to go about things. It’s like flogging a dead horse because without understanding there can be no positive change.

        I read this and of course I agree with what’s written:

        “Someone says, “But should we judge PEOPLE?” Yes, we certainly should. Paul actually REBUKES the Corinthians for NOT judging: “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?” (I Cor. 6:1-5) If judging is wrong, then Paul needs to confess and repent for misleading these Christians! He clearly told them to JUDGE PEOPLE.

        If judging people is wrong, how can we obey Romans 16:17-18? II Corinthians 6:17? II Timothy 3:5-6? I John 4:1? Friend, if judging is wrong, then God has contradicted Himself and His words cannot be trusted!

        Notice Malachi 3:18: “Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.” WOW! Does that sound like it is wrong to judge?

        What about Revelation 2:2? ” I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:” Why would the Lord be pleased with these Christians if judging was wrong? Is it not impossible to find someone a “liar” without judging them?

        If the Bible is clear about anything, it is clear about the importance of judging on a regular basis in order to properly serve and honor God. To ignore this fact is to ignore all of the Scripture just presented and also the rest of the Bible. God expects us to judge.”


      • ummmm….Might one suggest that you lot are taking the quote ‘out of context’? 😯
        The whole thing says: “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you.”
        There’s no instruction not to judge, but only that ~ if you do ~ you should be prepared to be judged by the same standard.

        Therefore, if you adjudge someone to be a fool for whatever reasons, and those reasons don’t appertain to you, then you have nothing to worry about.

        Just as well, too…otherwise god would be in deep shit come Judgment Day!


    • fossall on November 26, 2013 at 23:24 said:

      “There is no two paths to god the same. Each path is strictly individual. God is not found in church, books or any other worldly place, but in the heart of the seeker. It was always there waiting to be discovered, to be remembered. God never leaves or forsakes. Ever.”

      Oh yes!


      • bryanpattersonfaithworks on November 28, 2013 at 18:42 said:
        “Nevertheless, some people are jerks and need to be told.”

        But what has made them jerks? They may be on a path which has obstacles different from your path, though they both lead to the same end. Perhaps they are doing quite well considering their background. Consider too if they shed their present beliefs, they could have worse ones.

        If you deprive these people of one belief, you need to replace it with something acceptable to them, which is hard to do if it’s not a belief of your own. You feel two-faced.

        All I feel capable of doing is to show as much love as I can – not always easy! And to show the possibility of many different beliefs being the truth. It would be in vain to insist that all black birds are crows, that humans have long hair, that people cannot swim, and so on, when there are so many other truths.


      • Hi Dreamweaver,

        Would you mind explaining to me what you said to Bryan in a way that I can understand?

        I thought jerks were just people behaving obnoxiously. And I do not understand what it has to do with faith. How can we take that away from them? Thanks


      • Monica, I’m not very good at expressing things, but I’ll try. Tell me if I’m still being obscure. Yes, a jerk is someone behaving obnoxiously, in our opinion. They may be like this because of their beliefs. Perhaps they behaved worse than this in the past, and are now somewhat improved, though their beliefs and behaviour are still not acceptable to our thinking.

        They, and all of us, can deteriorate into worse beliefs, worse behaviour. I am against destroying anyone’s faith, unless we can replace it with (what we consider) a better faith. The trouble is, what we consider better might be totally unacceptable to that person, and we may have done more harm than good.

        Now perhaps I’m off the track equating beliefs with behaviour, but I’m not limiting ‘beliefs’ to ‘religious beliefs’.

        All I can do for such people is to show love, and this can be very difficult with jerks! And I try to show that many truths are possible, that they don’t have to fixate on any absolute truth. The examples I gave were meant to say that yes, it’s truth that black birds can be crows, but it’s also true they can be swans, starlings, and so on. Yes it’s true that humans can have long hair, but it’s also true that is not the sole truth of the matter. Yes, it’s true that many people can’t swim, but also true that many can.

        There can be many truths.


      • Oops! Omitted ‘How can we take away someone’s faith?’ That comes back to destroying their belief that they are totally right, I think.


      • So are you saying Dreamweaver,

        That even though we may so want to slap them around till they come to their senses, so to speak, it really isn’t up to us to change them; that we have no right to even think that we can? Yes, I can see that now. In fact I can see that when we start doing that we then start being jerks and bullies ourselves—right? And as you say, the best thing we can do is allow God to shine through us no matter how difficult and trying this particular type of person may be to us.

        I must admit that I find the religious ones the most trying and it is with great sorrow that I also see myself in them at times, but also great joy when I realise just how much I have grown and changed, I believe for the better, in my faith and beliefs over the years. So I must remember that in God there is always hope for change and that it’s He’s job to change people, not mine.

        Thanks Dreamweaver. There’s nothing wrong with your communication skills, I just need some help sometimes to understand what’s being said, and you can bet that if I care enough to ask questions, that God will get through to me eventually, praise God!



      • Monica, I don’t know. Perhaps it really isn’t up to us to change them, but we can be led to say the right thing at the right time. We have a right to believe God can speak through us, but I think we need to feel really sure before we say too much.

        Sometimes people’s lives can be really turned around by someone bringing religion to them. Trouble for me is, that ‘saving’ aspect often comes with the more fundamentalist beliefs, which are not my beliefs, though I believe they’re a step on the road.

        When the ‘jerk’ is already a believer I’m inclined to think “Let go and let God”.


  2. Bryan
    You are contradicting yourself… again.

    The Indian philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti said: “Truth is a pathless land. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, nor through any philosophical knowledge or psychological technique.’’

    Yet you condemn me for not revealing my religious organisation afiliation. If what this guy says is true, why are you quoting him? By his own statement we don’t need him or his statement either. Funny how his statement applies to everyone else except himself.


  3. Why we need to be either right or wrong? Can’t we just be. Without judgements about the condition we are in or others are? The bible warns us in several places not to judge, not because our judgement will affect the other, but because it will affect ourselves. In fact we suffer the loss. Also as far as seeing someone as “jerk” does not the bible mention “out of the heart the mouth speak?”
    In other words we see in others what is within ourselves. We all struggle with this, myself included. So easy to look outside of myself to point. Yet on honest reflection I can see this very thing craft fully hidden within the depths of my mind. So easy to step outside, yet all that is, is on our inside.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s