1a. Mark
Dr. Jordan Peterson ‘the problem that won’t let you go”-Jordan at his best, synthesis of theology, philosophy, psychology Provide link.
1b. Dan
Jordan Peterson Technical Support
You: I’d like to cancel my subscription.
Support: What do you mean by cancel?
You: I don’t want the service anymore.
Support: Ah, but what is want? Is wanting merely preference, or is it the manifestation of a hierarchy of values?
You: I just don’t want to pay.
Support: So you’ve placed financial prudence above continued participation in the service.
You: Yes.
Support: Then the service is still at the top of your hierarchy—otherwise why would you be orienting yourself around it?
You: …I don’t think that’s how this works.
Support: That’s because you’re still using the post-Enlightenment conception of “subscription.”
You: Can I just click “Cancel”?
Support: There is no cancel. There is only wrestling with the Terms of Service.
1. Mark
The Biblical Attitude of a Mocker, According to scripture, the core attitude of a mocker (or scoffer) is rooted in extreme pride, arrogance, and a deeply inflated sense of self-importance, as highlighted in Proverbs 21:24.A mocker possesses a closed mind and operates with intellectual disdain, operating under the constant assumption that they alone know best while looking down on others. Biblically, mockers express their superiority through cynical speech, mean-spirited sarcasm, and the deliberate belittling of godly, wise principles. This heart posture is defined by an active hostility toward authority, which drives them to aggressively oppose and trample upon valuable truths. Rather than exhibiting humble openness, a mocker harbors a deep-seated resistance to correction and responds to constructive instruction with immediate anger, insults, and hatred. The Results of a Mocker’s Attitude Because they despise and actively reject guidance, mockers remain spiritually blind and struggle to ever find or learn anything of true value, according to Proverbs 14:6.Their combative tongues act as catalyst for social destruction, frequently stirring up anger, strife, and intense verbal quarrels wherever they go. Consequently, communities or groups are commanded by scripture to drive them out, a boundary that ultimately forces the unrepentant mocker into severe isolation and deep personal loneliness. On a relational level, their constant cynicism and habitual sneering permanently poison their connections, completely destroying their reputation among peers. Ultimately, scripture warns that mockers face inescapable divine retribution, as God directly opposes their pride and reserves strict, unavoidable judgments for them, as noted in Proverbs 19:29.
2. Dan
I sent that because I thought it was funny, and honestly because it poked at something I find frustrating in Peterson’s arguments—the way he can slowly change the meaning of a word and then use the new meaning to support his conclusion.
But your response kind of demonstrates the larger issue we’ve been talking about. Instead of engaging with what I actually think or why I found it funny, you’ve placed me into a biblical category of “mocker” and then used scripture to tell me what my internal attitude really is: prideful, arrogant, closed-minded, hostile to truth, resistant to correction, and spiritually blind.
Do you see the problem for me?
You believe I really believe in God but am angry at or rejecting him. I tell you I simply don’t believe a god exists. But my explanation of my own position doesn’t seem to count, because your belief system already has an explanation for why I say what I say.
Now, if I joke about an argument, scripture can explain that too: I’m a mocker. If I disagree, that can be interpreted as resistance to correction. If I get frustrated at being described that way, the frustration can become evidence of anger and hostility.
It creates a framework where there is almost nothing I can say about myself that is allowed to challenge your interpretation of me.
Imagine if I told you that you don’t actually believe in God—you are simply afraid there may be no God, and your religious devotion is a psychological defense against that fear. Then, when you disagreed, I told you your defensiveness proved my point. You’d rightly tell me I was claiming to know your own mind better than you do.
I respect that your faith is important to you. I listen to the Peterson lectures you send me and actually think seriously about them—that’s why I can tell you specifically where I think his argument changes definitions. I’m not dismissing the ideas because I’m angry at God.
I need the same respect back. You don’t have to agree with my conclusion, but I do need you to accept that I’m being sincere when I tell you what I do and don’t believe.
And yes, I am still going to make jokes. 😂 That’s probably a lost cause.
Proverbs 19:29. How does Jordan Peterson relate to proverbs 19:5 and 19:9
3. Mark
Oki dokie
4.Dan
See…I’m a lost cause 🙌
5. Mark
Only if you think so…
It all gets down to the choice to believe in absolute truth and reality has to defind by the creator of it.
6. Dan
I think this is where we keep talking past each other. I don’t experience belief as a choice.
I can choose to listen to Peterson, read scripture, think seriously about your arguments and question my own assumptions. I do all of that. But I can’t just choose to believe a god exists any more than you could simply choose tomorrow to sincerely believe there is no god. And saying reality has to be defined by its creator already assumes there is a creator. That’s the part I’m not convinced of. I know you care about me, and I don’t take that lightly. I just need you to understand that I’m not standing here with my arms crossed saying “I refuse to believe.” I’m telling you honestly that I am not convinced.
The Peterson reference to proverbs came out more pointed than I intended, but now that I read it back, there is a fair question buried in the joke.
If Peterson says atheists really believe in God and are angry at or rejecting him, despite them sincerely saying they simply don’t believe a god exists, at what point is he claiming to know another person’s heart and mind better than they do?
And if that claim is false, what does Proverbs 19:5 and 19:9 say about confidently bearing witness to what someone else “really believes”?
I’m not calling Jordan a liar. I’m asking why the biblical standard for a mocker applies so quickly to me, but the biblical standard for a false witness wouldn’t at least cause us to examine what Jordan is claiming about atheists.
7. Mark
I’ve shared the following before. Abraham was the father of faith because he allowed no disbelief. Faith is a choice. And while believers see many proofs daily, momentarily, those who don’t choose have no proofs, only witnesses of those who prove through their faith God’s faithfulness. https://worksofwords.live/2019/04/29/no-proof-only-witness/
Applying biblical standards to Peterson, which you won’t accept for yourself, seems a nonsensical argument. However, in Peterson’s defense, the biblical narrative is simply all about man’s weakness and inability to aspire and align with the goodness of God and God’s provision and way to mediate for those failures because of his love for his creatures. So sure he’s a hypocrite. Who isn’t?
8. Dan
I think this actually helps me understand where we keep talking past each other.
You see faith as a choice. I don’t experience belief that way. I can choose to listen to Peterson, read scripture, question my own assumptions, and seriously consider your arguments. I do all of that.
But I can’t simply choose what I find convincing.
Could you choose right now to sincerely become convinced there is no God? Not pretend, not argue the position for a day, but actually decide to no longer be convinced God exists?
That’s the disconnect for me when you say Abraham “allowed no disbelief” and faith is a choice. From my perspective, I can’t choose to be convinced of something any more than I can choose what food tastes good to me. I can expose myself to it, examine it and reconsider it, but the conviction itself isn’t a switch I consciously flip.
But I also think we’ve drifted away from how this whole conversation started.
You sent me Peterson. I listened to him seriously, and my criticism was specifically about Peterson’s argument.
I wasn’t calling Peterson a hypocrite. I honestly don’t know how we got there.
My point is that Peterson takes words like God, belief, prayer and revelation, slowly broadens or changes their meaning, and then uses those new meanings to make claims about what atheists “really” believe.
When Peterson says an atheist really believes in God but is angry at or rejecting God, he is making a claim about what is happening inside someone else’s mind. The atheist says, “No, I simply don’t believe a god exists.” Peterson effectively responds, “Yes you do—you just don’t understand what you really believe.”
That’s what I was poking fun at, and that’s why I jokingly brought up false witness. Not because Peterson is imperfect or a hypocrite. Of course he is imperfect. We all are. That wasn’t my point.
My question is much narrower and honestly sincere: do you think Peterson can fairly tell an atheist what they “really believe” after that person has clearly and sincerely described their own lack of belief?
Because I think this matters between you and me too. I know you care about me. You’ve made that very clear, and I don’t dismiss it. But sometimes I feel like your theology has already decided what is happening inside my head before I get to tell you.
I’m angry at God. I’m rejecting God. I’m choosing disbelief. I’m mocking truth.
Anything except the simple thing I’m actually telling you: I am not convinced a god exists.
That’s really the point I’ve been trying to make since you sent me the Peterson lecture.
9. Mark
Hi Dan
I entirely and completely respect your right to choose what you believe. I have no need or intent to judge or know what’s going on inside of you or your mind. It’s neither my right nor responsibility. My responsibility is to reflect accurately and walk in the truth and way I know and profess, imperfectly as I do, being human. I have experienced your expressions of anger for what they expressed, not a projection on you. It was me experiencing your expressions of anger that were generally when we were engaged in God talk. Whatever, dude. It’s your life, your choices, and your experience. The simple truth remains: I had my season of doubt and disbelief. It was neither helpful nor life-affirming. So, I’m done going there. I have no interest in a Godless creation; it would be hell on earth to me. I love God; He’s my father, one who is all-powerful and ever-present. It’s enough for me that I know and experience Him. If He is, then you’re simply wrong, and that will be manifest one day in you experiencing His will for your afterlife. If He is not, it won’t matter to me when I’m done here; there’ll be nothing to experience after im finished.
10. Dan
I hear you, and I respect that your experience of God is real and deeply meaningful to you. I don’t need you to doubt it, abandon it, or spend time imagining a Godless creation if you’ve decided that’s not a place you want to go.
But I do need to be equally clear about my position.
I do not believe a god exists. I’m not choosing disbelief. I’m not choosing a Godless creation because I find it preferable. I’m not rejecting God, and I’m not secretly believing in God while being angry with Him. I simply am not convinced that a god exists.
I can absolutely express anger when we’re talking about God. I’m often angry at things people have done in the name of God, religious teachings I consider harmful, and arguments that tell me what I “really” think despite what I’m saying. I can be angry at an idea and its consequences without believing the central character of that idea exists.
You tell me you love God and experience Him as your father. I accept that as an honest description of what is happening inside you. I don’t tell you that you secretly don’t believe and that your faith is really fear, wishful thinking, or a psychological defense against a Godless universe—even though I could construct that argument from what you just wrote. I don’t do that because you have told me what you believe, and I respect your ability to describe your own mind.
That’s the same respect I’m asking from you.
And I don’t think “your right to choose what you believe” quite gets there, because it still frames my nonbelief as a choice. I can choose what arguments I expose myself to. I can choose to listen to Peterson—which I did. I can choose to question my assumptions—which I do. I cannot choose what ultimately convinces me.
And this is where I’m going to drag Jordan Peterson back into the room because that’s literally how this conversation started.
You sent me Peterson. I listened to the lecture seriously. I thought it was Peterson at his best. I agreed with a surprising amount of his psychology and found the synthesis fascinating. Then I identified a specific problem with his argument: he slowly broadens the meanings of God, prayer, revelation, belief and worship, and then uses those broadened meanings to claim something about what atheists “really believe.”
That’s what I mocked.
Your first response was a biblical description of the heart and attitude of a “mocker.” Then we went to Abraham, faith as a choice, proofs available to believers, God’s faithfulness, man’s weakness, and now your personal experience of God.
All of that tells me a great deal about what you believe, and I respect your sincerity.
But none of it answers my criticism of Peterson.
My question was never whether Peterson is a hypocrite or imperfect. My question is whether Peterson can fairly tell an atheist, who sincerely says “I do not believe a god exists,” that they actually believe in God but are angry at Him or rejecting Him.
That’s particularly relevant between us because you have said essentially that about me before.
So yes, dude, it’s my life and my experience. And I’m telling you what my experience actually is: there is no suppressed belief in God underneath my atheism. There is no God I’m angry at. There is no God I’m refusing to accept.
I remain open to evidence and arguments. That’s why I listened to the lecture you sent me and engaged with it instead of dismissing it.
But being open to an argument doesn’t obligate me to find it convincing. And finding a flaw in Peterson’s argument isn’t mockery of truth.
Now answer the damn Peterson question. 😂
11. Mark
I think what Peterson is implying is proven in this entire dialogue. You and I are wrestling with God in all of this. He is central to and manifest in the very conversation. The entire conversation is God-centric. That reflects Peterson’s thesis.
12. Dan
Okay 😂 I think you finally answered my Peterson question, and I think your answer perfectly identifies where you and I disagree.
Of course our conversation is God-centric. We are discussing God. More specifically, we’re discussing Peterson’s arguments about God because you sent me the lecture.
But watch what happens in your wording.
God is central to the conversation.
Then God is manifest in the conversation.
Then you and I are wrestling with God.
Those are not the same claim to me.
I agree completely that the concept of God is central to our conversation. But you move from the concept of God being present in our discussion to God Himself being present and an active participant in it.
That’s exactly the semantic movement I’ve been pointing out in Peterson.
I’m wrestling with your arguments about God. I’m wrestling with Peterson’s arguments about God. I’m examining my own thinking about the existence of God.
You call all of that “wrestling with God.”
Once you redefine engagement with the concept or question of God as engagement with God Himself, Peterson’s conclusion becomes unavoidable—but only because God has already been inserted into the description of what I’m doing.
That’s my criticism. The conclusion is hiding in the language.
And I think this is why I notice the drift and you don’t experience it as drift. You already believe God is real and manifest in reality, so moving from “talking about God” to “wrestling with God” probably feels completely natural to you.
I don’t share that starting premise. So I see the connection you just crossed and ask: wait, when did the subject of the conversation become a participant in the conversation?
That’s the missing bridge for me.
And 😂 I swear I’m not trying to avoid God. I’m standing here asking for the structural calculations on the bridge you keep telling me I’ve already crossed.
13. Mark
We’re getting to the key. Peterson sees life and reality perceived through story, interpreted through story. I see life as created through words, shared through words. God is both a word and a story, with meaning derived through interpretations of those words. You don’t agree with Peterson’s interpretations of the words, particularly “God.” I DO. Scripture says, “How can two walk together if they don’t agree?” You can’t walk with me on my God path because you don’t choose to agree with my definition of the word/name/being I define as God. Check out this interpretation of John 1:1 by Clive Scott; it should be explanatory:
John 1. 1-14
It all arose out of a conversation,
conversation within God, in fact the
conversation was God. So, God started the
discussion, and everything came out of this,
and nothing happened without consultation.This was the life, life that was the light of men,
shining in the darkness, a darkness which
neither understood nor quenched its creativity.John, a man sent by God, came to remind
people about the nature of the light so that
they would observe. He was not the subject
under discussion, but the bearer of an
invitation to join in.The subject of the conversation, the original
light, came into the world, the world that had
arisen out of his willingness to converse. He
fleshed out the words but the world did not
understand. He came to those who knew the
language, but they did not respond. Those
who did became a new creation (his children),
they read the signs and responded.These children were born out of sharing in
the creative activity of God. They heard the
conversation still going on, here, now, and
took part, discovering a new way of being people.To be invited to share in a conversation
about the nature of life, was for them, a glorious
opportunity not to be missed.Clive Scott ©
14. Dan
Okay. I actually think we’re finally at the key. 😂
And I read the Clive Scott interpretation. I can absolutely see why it resonates with you. Starting with logos as “conversation” and then hearing the rest of John through that lens is a fascinating interpretation.
But I think you just said something really important:
“You don’t agree with Peterson’s interpretations of the words, particularly ‘God.’ I DO.”
Yes. Exactly.
That’s the point I’ve been trying to make about Peterson.
You accept his expanded meaning of God because it aligns with what you already understand God to be. So when Peterson moves from values, story, meaning, conscience, the unknown, or wrestling with the question of God to “God,” you don’t experience that as a semantic leap. You already agree that God is present in and behind those things.
I don’t share that premise.
So when I’m wrestling with an argument about whether God exists, and Peterson calls that “wrestling with God,” I see him changing the description of what I’m doing in a way that already assumes his conclusion.
You accept the interpretation. I don’t.
That’s a real disagreement, and I’m completely comfortable with it.
But then you make one more move: “you don’t CHOOSE to agree with my definition.”
That’s where you lose me again. 😂
Why is your agreement with Peterson an interpretation you sincerely hold, but my disagreement with Peterson a choice I am making?
I don’t choose to find his definition unconvincing. I examined his argument and noticed that the meaning of “God” was changing as the argument progressed.
And here’s the really important part: if we now agree that Peterson is interpreting the word “God” in a particular way, then he can’t use his interpretation of “God” to prove that I secretly believe in God.
He can say, “Under my definition of God, Dan’s engagement with meaning, story, values and the question of God counts as engagement with God.”
Fine.
But that’s a statement about Peterson’s definition.
It isn’t a discovery about my hidden belief.
That’s been my point since the beginning.
And I think you may have finally gotten us there. 😂
15. Mark
Ill need to chew on it a bit more but were are getting to it.
16.
Well, friend, Peterson has studied the depths of the stories of humanity, the science of consciousness and cognition. He and I agree on the foundational premise of understanding (I think): “There were two trees in the garden of delight.” They where both trees of knowledge. The tree of ‘life’ and the tree of ‘the knowledge of good and evil’.” I define the second tree, the one the author of the story says ” leads to death,” as “The tree of independent human reason.” One simply chooses to extend one’s hand (heart, or mind) to imbibe the juices of the fruit of either tree. If this story is allegorical, or archetypal, or simply spiritual reality, it is foundational to perspective and therefore perception. Take it or leave it, the choice remains yours, my friend.
17. Dan
I actually appreciate this response because I think you’ve finally made your foundational assumption explicit.
You’re saying Peterson’s conclusions make sense because you and he begin from the same premise: that independent human reason is the wrong tree to eat from, and that reality is properly understood through the tree of life.
That’s a much clearer disagreement than Peterson’s semantics.
But I still think we’re talking past each other on one really important point.
You continue to describe my position as a choice.
From the inside, it doesn’t feel like a choice.
I didn’t wake up one morning and decide, “Today I’ll eat from the tree of independent human reason.”
I examined the question as honestly as I knew how, and I arrived at a place where I was no longer convinced that a god exists.
If tomorrow I became convinced that God exists, I wouldn’t describe that as choosing a different tree. I’d describe it as becoming convinced something is true.
That’s why I keep pushing back on the language of choice. It doesn’t match my experience of belief.
And I think this brings us back to Peterson one last time.
Peterson’s framework seems to require that my lack of belief ultimately be interpreted as a deeper choice or orientation. My experience is that it isn’t.
So here’s the question I’d genuinely like you to answer.
Do you believe I’m sincerely describing my own mind when I say I’m not convinced a god exists?
Or do you believe your framework understands my own mind better than I do?
Because those are two very different conversations.
15. Mark
Friend, I am absolutely sure you’re describing your own mind. My framework is built upon my choice to take revealed facts, events, or understandings and to weigh them against my experiences and framework (my interpretive grid) and choose what they mean. That said, my interpretive grid I have chosen to construct through the Hebrew scriptures and my experiences with the power and personality, “the presence” I know as God Yah, YeHoVaH. “He who was, who is, and who will be present.” His word (the scriptures) tells me “nothing befalls us that is not common to man,” so I can only know you through what I have known. I knew days of doubt about the existence of God, and like my father Abraham, I chose then to allow no disbelief. That has brought peace, satisfaction, prosperity, love, joy, and hope consistently growing in my life. As Abraham Joshua Heschel says, “There are no proofs of God, only witnesses.” I am one, friend.
18. Mark
Don’t miss the glorious beauty and present power of your creator because you were raised in a bad religion that misunderstood and misinterpreted his words.
19. Dan
Thank you. I genuinely appreciate you saying that you believe I am accurately describing my own mind. That matters to me, and it resolves an important part of what I have been trying to communicate.
I also understand your position more clearly now. You have consciously chosen an interpretive grid based on Hebrew scripture and what you experience as the presence and personality of Yah. You interpret your life through that grid, and you believe that choice has brought you peace, satisfaction, prosperity, love, joy and hope.
I accept you as a sincere witness to that experience.
But I think a witness can testify to what they experienced without necessarily establishing the explanation for it—or making that experience transferable to someone else.
You say, “I can only know you through what I have known.” I understand that as a human limitation we all share. But it is also where projection can enter.
You experienced doubt, chose to allow no disbelief, returned to faith, and found that life-giving. That tells me something important and real about your experience.
It does not necessarily tell you why I no longer believe.
When you conclude that I may miss my creator because I was raised in a bad religion that misunderstood His words, you have moved beyond accepting my account of my mind and supplied a theological explanation for it. That may be how your interpretive grid explains me, but it is not my experience.
My upbringing certainly influenced me, as yours influenced you. But I did not leave belief merely because Adventism portrayed God badly. I questioned whether any god exists and ultimately found that I was no longer convinced.
A better religion might have given me a more attractive conception of God. It would not, by itself, establish that the being exists.
Your witness is that choosing faith transformed your life. I don’t dispute your witness.
My witness is that I examined the belief I inherited, despite the personal and relational cost, and could no longer honestly maintain it. I need that testimony to be allowed to stand too—not as rejection, damaged religion, or a failure to choose correctly, but as an honest account of where examination led me.
Perhaps Heschel’s statement gives us a useful boundary: you are a witness to what you experience as God. You are not proof of God, and your experience is not proof of what is happening in me.
I can respect your witness without sharing your interpretation of it. And you can respect mine without needing to place my nonbelief inside your story of God.
20. Mark
Ah, therein lies the rub. We cannot both be right—God is, or God is not. If He is (as His very name implies), we must then allow His interpretive grid to become our own. If He is not, as you have chosen to believe, then we all have our own little experiences, and the commonality is suspect. We become the formulators of a reality of our own choosing rather than one our Creators making. Again, we have the two trees of knowledge: independent human reason (one that excludes the Creator’s rights to interpret within the systems He created) and a human being’s determination (a choice) to self-determination. No way around a foundational truth but to dismiss the foundations altogether. Eliminate God, and you get to be your own little god.
21. Dan
I actually think we’ve finally identified the real disagreement.
If God exists and has revealed His interpretive framework, then of course His understanding would be greater than mine.
Where we differ is earlier than that.
My question has never been whether God’s interpretation would be authoritative.
My question has always been: how do we know that a particular human interpretation is God’s interpretation?
That’s where I think every one of us—including you and me—has to exercise human judgment.
And that’s why I don’t see the alternatives as “God or becoming my own little god.”
I don’t think I create reality.
I think reality exists independently of me, and I’m trying, however imperfectly, to discover what is true about it.
If God exists, then I want to believe what is true.
If God does not exist, I also want to believe what is true.
I also noticed that at the end you appealed to the law of non-contradiction, which I agree is important, but it doesn’t really address the earlier question about how we identify which interpretation is actually God’s.
The thing I’m trying to avoid isn’t God.
It’s convincing myself that I’ve reached certainty before the evidence has earned it.
And I think it’s worth acknowledging that both of us could be mistaken in how we’re interpreting things.
I think that’s where you and I genuinely part ways—not in our desire for truth, but in where we believe we’ve found sufficient reason to say, “This is it.”
22. Mark
Ahh perhaps not. If your After truth and reality, you will find it. I chose to believe I have found it in Yeshua. He is truth, reality, love, joy, and peace. etc. I do not need to know how he manifests himself as those to you but its his nature to do so. Even if you do not recognize it. Art Katz says in his book “The Spirit of Truth”: “Men seek truths, God seeks to make men true. The pursuits are different, and the men created by the differing pursuits vastly different.” We are friends because I discern you are sincerely engaged in the pursuit of truth and true life. Yet both are hidden in the mystery of God, whose “ways are not our ways or thoughts our thoughts.” If you really want the truth, you’ll find it. And its pursuit has led you out of one of the deepest ditches. False religion!
23. Dan
I appreciate that, my friend. And I genuinely believe you mean it.
I think you’re right that we’re both after truth and reality. I also appreciate you recognizing that leaving the religion I was raised in was a step toward honestly pursuing those questions rather than simply rejecting them.
Where I still see our paths diverging is here.
You say that if someone truly seeks truth, they will find Yeshua. I understand why you believe that.
From my perspective, though, I don’t think the sincerity of the pursuit guarantees that two sincere people will reach the same conclusion. I think it guarantees only that each person should be willing to follow the evidence and reasoning wherever they honestly believe it leads.
That’s why I keep resisting the language of “choice.”
If tomorrow I became convinced that Yeshua is who you believe He is, I wouldn’t experience that as choosing a different reality. I’d experience it as becoming convinced something is true.
Likewise, I don’t see my current position as choosing independence from God or choosing to be “my own little god.” I don’t believe I create reality. I believe reality exists independently of both of us, and both of us are trying—however imperfectly—to understand it.
Where we continue to differ is that you believe you’ve found the final interpretive key to reality. I continue asking how we distinguish between reality itself and our interpretation of it.
That isn’t because I’m avoiding God.
It’s because I want my conclusions to be constrained by what I honestly find convincing, not by what I most hope to be true or fear might be true.
I respect your witness because it’s your experience.
I’m simply asking that my witness be granted the same respect.
If there is a God, then I want to know what is true.
If there is not, I also want to know what is true.
I don’t know any more honest way to seek than that.
24. Mark
I don’t know anything more important to me than an honest quest for truth and reality in grace. I love you, Dan, because that is our mutual aspiration. Call it what you will. It is foundational to true life in reality, and we share that, friend. What I believe this conversation, this glorious conversation, has done is exposed the misunderstandings of one another’s hearts. I have trusted that your quest was for truth and reality. The grace (that came upon this planet through Christ) has exposed, I believe, the disconnects between us. For that, I’m grateful. And from my perspective (because Yeshua is the personification of truth and grace in reality), we can and most likely will share that unity of heart eternally. Why? Because life in Yeshua, who is grace and truth in reality, has no ending. It is from outside our space and time continuum. I love you, brother. See you on the other side…
25.
26. Dan
Thank you. I understand much better why you ended with, “See you on the other side.”
Your words about Steve—”We butted heads, but never hearts”—really resonated with me. I think that’s a wonderful description of what we’ve been doing.
This conversation has been one of the most intellectually engaging and personally meaningful conversations I’ve had in a long time. We still arrive at different conclusions, but I don’t feel misunderstood anymore, and I hope you don’t either.
One thing I admire about you is that you’ve never been afraid to have the hard conversations when they matter. I know your words come from a place of love, conviction, and a genuine desire for truth. I hope you know that my questions come from the same place, even though they lead me somewhere different.
I don’t know what either of us will ultimately discover beyond this life. You know what you hope for me, and I appreciate that it comes from love, not from judgment.
Whatever lies ahead, I’m grateful that our friendship has been strong enough to withstand honest disagreement. Those friendships are rare.
I love you too, my friend. Thank you for trusting me enough to walk through these conversations together.
26. Mark.
Absolutely, it’s the mutual admiration society. Things are going well for me in Texas because, as I told the Director of the Division of Architecture and the Courthouse Preservation Program Coordinator, “I parked my ego and ambition years ago. I’ve not found a place to park my vanity, but I’m working on it. I am just here to help! Let me know how I can help!” That said, perhaps our conversation could help others. I shared it last night with a young man (24) I’m befriending, and you spoke his own convictions. Might I post our conversation on worksofwords.live? It might help others as well!
27. Dan.
Mark,
I’d be honored for you to share our conversation.
My only request is that, if you edit it, you preserve the structure and intent of what I was saying. I’m less concerned with the exact words than I am with accurately representing the ideas and the reasoning behind them.
I think the value of the conversation is that it honestly reflects two friends trying to understand one another while remaining committed to what each sincerely believes is true.
If that comes through, then I’m happy for others to read it.
28.
As for your new role in Texas. I’m really happy for you.
From everything you’ve shared with me over the years, this sounds like a role that’s uniquely suited to your gifts. You have a deep appreciation for history, craftsmanship, and the stories buildings carry with them. Courthouse preservation seems like a place where all of those come together.
I also smiled when I read what you told your director: “I’m just here to help.” Whether we’re talking architecture or life, I think that’s a good place to arrive.
I hope they recognize what they’ve gained. I have a feeling you’ll make a meaningful contribution there, not just through your knowledge, but through the way you encourage the people around you.
Congratulations, my friend. I’m genuinely excited to see where this chapter takes you.
29. Mark
Blessings brother…Thanks. ill respect the spirits revelation as accurately and faithfully as I can. God is in our conversations.
30. Dan
Thank you, Mark.
I appreciate that. I know you’ll do your best to represent both of us faithfully, and I trust your integrity in doing so.
Whatever each of us believes is ultimately at work in these conversations, I’m grateful that they’ve deepened our friendship and our understanding of one another. That’s become much more important to me than trying to persuade one another.
Thank you again for asking my permission. That meant a lot to me.
31. Mark
Dan I love and respect you. This is from Rabbi Richman on how Moses became so selfless that God was able to “speak through him.” The personality of a prophet subjugates itself to God’s presence and therefore reveals God preeminently. If you read the prophets, you can see them as gloves that God puts on and moves through. That’s how the Hebrew Bible was written. God chose to be a friend of my father Abraham because he loved truth, loved reality, and had an obedient heart. He simply did what God asked of him. That’s how the Hebrew Bible came about: a unique people with a unique commitment to believe in and follow YeHoVaH. We as a people ( those who remain in faith) are simply taken up with a focus on Yahh. Like it or not thats our way…
https://youtube.com/sharing/invite/PU-_qzcj8Hlh-4r4?w=ooFu8uf0ItY
32. Dan
I think I have a much better understanding of how you see revelation and why it is so central to how you understand God. I can see that you’re trying to explain your worldview, not simply persuade me to adopt it.
I still don’t see it the same way, but understanding your perspective is different from agreeing with it.
I hope our conversation has also helped you understand that my questions and my lack of belief come from my own sincere attempt to understand reality, not from a lack of respect for truth. We’re both trying to understand reality as honestly as we can, even though we’ve reached different conclusions.
I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective, and I appreciate our friendship.
33. Mark
I appreciate your perspective. I think I understand it as scientific in nature. Being a poet and an artist, I get captivated by the ineffable things of life and art. The two worldviews are not mutually exclusive; it’s the mysteries that define the magic of life in my mind.
34. Dan
I think “scientific” is a fair description in many ways. At the same time, I don’t see science and poetry as opposites.
To me, science is often driven by the same sense of mystery, wonder, and beauty that inspires artists and poets. It’s the desire to understand those mysteries that keeps people asking questions.
I think we both find the world fascinating. Where we differ is less in our appreciation of mystery than in what we think it ultimately points to.
That’s one of the things I’ve enjoyed about our conversations. We approach those questions from different directions, but we’re both genuinely interested in understanding reality.
works of words 