Travis Morgan says:

in the context of Judeo-Christian thought? I guess that takes me out of the conversation.

posted Feb 19

Pastor Chris says:

all i know is Chuck Norris counted to infinity twice. That takes skill.

posted Mar 23

Travis Morgan says:

Way to go. You know what it means when you start finding contradictory statements don't you? Can you post the sections in the bible where these two statements are? I'd like to use them as a reference later.

posted Dec 11

annihilation [dances a break down] says:

looking about.. there seems to be a fair amount of continual debate as to the nature of the writing of these books and what that means to the understanding of their contents. [conflicts, translations, authorship, nature of the authorship and so on...]

hah... so it's not really a question so much as a field of study.

edit: changed critisism to debate... which is perhaps the corrector of the two

posted Dec 12

Pastor Chris says:

1 Corinthians 13 (which I'm guessing is what you're referencing)
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. it always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

I think Love is quite jealous. I know that when my wife spends more time at work or on hobbies than she does with me, I become jealous. Its not that I dont trust her its just that I would like to be that one spending time with her. I dont feel this is unhealthy in anyway, but conversely showing a healthy desire. God's relationship with us could most easily placed in this context.

edit: its good to be communicating again with you fine people

posted Dec 18

Corey says:

I would concur with Pastor Chris' explanation on the discrepancy you brought up. This comes down to language, semantics, and word meaning. "Pride," as another example, is a word that can have both positive and negative connotations.

As to the larger question: The Bible has many contradictions. Most of them are of a historical or scientific nature. Other contradictions of teaching can sometimes be explained by examining context. Only those "free-thinkers" dead-set on dismantling the Christian faith can so easily read 2 sentences back-to-back, ripped of their context, and immediately declare "Contradiction!"

However, for me, the fact that the Bible has contradictions and human error is not an obstacle to my faith. Errors in scripture are only problematic if you believe that God wrote the book himself and dropped it out of the sky. Far from it...the Bible has gone through the hands of many editors, translators, etc., some of whom had clear agendas. But for me, it can still reveal something of how God has worked in the lives of his people in the past, and provide me with guidance on how he can work in my life today. And the Bible, because it's authors were so human, gives me a text I can relate to.

For example, the book of Proverbs often speaks of "wisdom" as the greatest thing a human could want or seek. The book immediately following, Ecclesiastes, more or less says "screw wisdom...and everything else for that matter. It's all meaningless." If both of these perspectives were not present in the Bible, it would not be a "living and active" document for me (Hebrews 4:12). I have Proverbs days, and I have Ecclesiastes days.

If the Bible was what many Christians claim it to be (or want it to be), then it wouldn't be a very impressive book. As it is, it is a magnificent and intruiging collection of narratives, poetry, history, prophecy, letters, (etc.) full of people just like us earnestly seeking the will of God in a confusing world.

posted Dec 30

Corey says:

To prove that I do not hide, minimize, or ignore the problematic nature of some things in the Bible, I invite all of you to this website: Skeptics Annotated Bible

Browse around, keeping in mind the following things:
1) The website's creators are clearly not trying to be fair or objective
2) All of the verses must be read in their context (textual, historical, social, geographical, etc). Sometimes, when a "problematic" text is considered within its context, it actually ends up being a progressive step beyond its time.

posted Dec 30

Pastor Chris says:

(I'm not Catholic) Most people like to believe in a god (whatever that is) but wouldn't it be logical to have an opposition? A ying & yang?

Exorcism...tough one. They're not the only ones. There are others.

posted Jul 31

The decent American says:

Thnx Chris......

posted Aug 1

Corey says:

You run into an interesting dynamic when you begin to talk about what "Catholics believe." Their main document, the Catechism, would affirm the reality of demon possession and discusses exorcism - and perhaps some priests are still taught it. (I'm not Catholic but my wife and in-laws are). However, if you were to stop the Catholic on the street and ask them about this, chances are he or she would think it's hogwash. This is true with many Catholic doctrines. The majority of Catholics either don't believe what the Church says they're supposed to believe, or they don't know their own church's doctrines to begin with.

posted Aug 16

Pastor Chris says:

Its funny that Catholocism can be broken up into 'Theory' and 'Practice' like so many other things they have a vast disconnect. You have 'America' the plot of land and then there is 'America' us (you and I). The 'church' (buildings with steeples) and then the 'church' you and I. sort of an in theory and grassroots practice.

Most of the time we 'the church' get pegged with what some dummy on the boob tube or some maniac on the radio at 4am says and we get painted with the same brush. It has a human tendency ring to it.

posted Aug 21

alixi [vive la resistance] says:

psh. for sure.

CRUSADES, ANYONE?

posted Jul 29

Travis Morgan says:

You want to control the masses, give them religion.

"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." ~ Napoleon Bonaparte

posted Jul 29

alixi [vive la resistance] says:

Napoleon is basically god in my book... haha!

posted Jul 29

Pastor Chris says:

where the crusades a tough time for you...? it seems your pretty much hung up on that.

If you want to keep a dog busy get him to chase his tale.

posted Jul 31

Travis Morgan says:

Why avoid discussing the crusades?

If one wants to determine if a structure is stable and secure, should one not examine how it was built? Who wants to stand on the 18th floor of a building that has toothpicks for a foundation?

posted Jul 31

alixi [vive la resistance] says:

Indeed, Travis.

@Chris- I was raised Christian. Like, to the max. I was led to believe the church could do no wrong. But then I looked at Christianity throughout history, and quite frankly I was appalled at what I found. I asked my pastor about the Crusades [which I found horrific] and he said it was "God's Will, to convert, and save the Muslim hordes." I was shocked, that anyone could justify killing and raping, and torture in the name of one god or another. So, you could say I'm hung up...I say I'm passionate.

posted Jul 31

Pastor Chris says:

Travis- We as creatures evolve and change. That which we tend to use most grows and strengthens and on the other side that which we dont use grows weaker. Our faith is a vital part of who we are. A peice of us that changes and grows as well. Instead of being a weak foundation that would cause all above it to be just as frail, maybe it just needs to be probed, changed and allowed to evolve.

The crusades were horrific no doubt, and there were plenty who rose up in protest of it. One in particular Martin Luther protested the entire church of his time with some errors in theology and practice. This was a reform-ation of the church. A step in its evolutionary process. And it still continues to evolve today.

Alixi- I sincerely apologize for your pastors ridiculous comments. He sounds like he should've been a Templar in 'the Kingdom of Heaven' with his "GOD WILLS IT!!". The church is a organism made up of people and people do stupid things. Just like any other organization made up of people its unfortunate that a minority ends up being the voice of the whole.

and on the topic of foundations: Christ was a very peaceful, loving, forgiving and merciful leader and visionary who taught us to love our neighbors and even our enemies. I find that to be a just foundation to build my life upon.

posted Jul 31

Travis Morgan says:

"Travis- We as creatures evolve and change." - Ah! So you believe in evolution? In this case, do you believe we evolved from apes, or that we are descendants of Adam and Eve?

posted Aug 1

Pastor Chris says:

Why yes, I do believe in evolution. Similar to your scepticism of the church and of things of the sort I am a little hesitant to swallow anything that is given to me in this realm. Just because someone has 10 letters after their name and they have claimed to find the link between me and a primate, doesnt mean that I'm going to jump onto the 18th floor of that building... cause the bottom looks like tooth picks to me.

Evolution is life. It is growth at its most raw. I whole-heartedly agree with the evolutionary process of life, just not the theory of Evolution- big difference. I do happen to believe in Creation theologically. But that doesnt mean that God didn't use evolution in those 7 'days' (long periods of time). Created things point to a creator. A designer.

posted Aug 1

Travis Morgan says:

If "created things point to a creator" What does the creator point too?

posted Aug 2

Pastor Chris says:

The creator points to its creation, which in turn should point back to the creator. As an artist you should be familiar with the feeling of creating something truly from the depth of you, your passion will be to show people what has just been created. To the viewer it ultimately points back to you.

posted Aug 4

Corey says:

There are certainly cases throughout history when the government used religion to control the masses. In America, I'm not sure that's exactly the case. The way I would want to say it is that people in government use religion and religious language to push their agenda (because they know that 50-60% of Americans are persuaded by such manipulation).

posted Aug 16

Pastor Chris says:

unfortunately i would have to agree. It is the nature of politics to find whatever leverage you can to get the advantage, and so religion has become such an advantage.

posted Aug 21

The decent American says:

ya,.....and realize....not realise"....while i'm being a smart ass....you can hit me in the arm!...LOL.

posted Jul 21

alixi [vive la resistance] says:

colour.
favourite.
realise.

savy?!
[:

posted Jul 21

The decent American says:

your'e fancy!.....http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/search?p=realise&searchmode=normal

posted Jul 21

alixi [vive la resistance] says:

oh, cheeky bastard. [:

posted Jul 21

The decent American says:

Alixi, you MUST KNOW I'm completley being an arse",( and an ass too!)......and my comments mean no disrespect at all,....I am cursed with being a "smarty-pants"......and I also answer to cheeky bastard!.....

posted Jul 21

alixi [vive la resistance] says:

WOAH.

That's quite a strong stance.
I want to see it. [:

posted Jul 21

Travis Morgan says:

If you like that, check out "The God Delusion"

posted Jul 21

Corey says:

Interesting. I've never heard of that movie, however, no scholar or historian worth their salt tries to claim that Jesus never even existed. That was the popular claim several decades ago, but it has been effectively refuted by secular scholars....even those who are anti-Christian.

As far as "The God Delusion," Richard Dawkins is brilliant and very entertaining, and I enjoyed his book. If you want to see him in action, search YouTube for his speech at Randolph-Macon Women's College in Lynchburg, VA. The Q&A portion is very entertaining.

posted Aug 16

Pastor Chris says:

despite the name "Thought and Theology, the marriage of intellect and religion" you'd be suprised

even though organized religion can be frustrating and dishearting it has a lot of pluses to its many minuses.

posted Jul 19

alixi [vive la resistance] says:

I assume you focus on the pluses, and ignore the minuses?

posted Jul 19

Pastor Chris says:

what minuses? Just kidding.

in any venue of life especially that of spiritual matters the glass is half full as far as im concerned.

posted Jul 19

alixi [vive la resistance] says:

Well, in my opinion, you can't over look things that go against the basic structure of said religion.

i.e. The richest organization in the entire world?
The Catholic church. And they got it by starting illegal wars in the name of Christianity. [Crusades.]

That would be a minus. [: And I just can't overlook that, or say, "Well, they're good, most of the time."

Half empty/half full doesn't exist to me.

posted Jul 20

The decent American says:

ooooo......don't even get me started with the Catholic church........yikes where do we EVEN start?......they truly believe they are the chosen ones.....

posted Jul 20

alixi [vive la resistance] says:

Well, everyone would like to believe they are "the chosen ones."

Psh. A load of waffle. [:

posted Jul 20

The decent American says:

for sure....

posted Jul 21

Travis Morgan says:

The richest organization in the entire world can afford a lot of salesman, and that is what I am finding everywhere, these salesman trying to make a sale. Then I think to myself, only fiction needs to be packaged and sold like such, for truth requires no such preparation, and it is available to everyone as is.

posted Jul 21

alixi [vive la resistance] says:

Oh! That's an excellent way of putting it.

posted Jul 21

Pastor Chris says:

Sorry I've missed much of this discussion:

That would be a minus. [: And I just can't overlook that, or say, "Well, they're good, most of the time."

-although a just point there are too many good things in the world to write off by the mistakes of a few (and i understand that its a large few) To make your case against religion cause of the 'Catholic Church' is like hating on white people for the actions of OUR great (great)-grandparents and the slave trade business. and an infinite amount of other people groups and cultures for their 'organized' mistakes in their time and place.

Fortunately God is not confined to our repeated failures. So often we give him the wrap sheet of those 'imperfect folk' attempting to represent him. I think for God to be 'God' and all that intails, he has to transcend some of that nonsense...

posted Jul 22

Corey says:

I'm a pastor, and I share your disillusionment with organized religion. It indeed boasts much for doubt and suspicion. The only difference between me and others I guess is that I've chosen to stay within the system to try to change it...or at least get it closer to what I think it's supposed to be. Then again, that makes ME arrogant...

posted Aug 16

Pastor Chris says:

but the only way to change a system is from the inside out. Attempting change on the outside is like trying to sink a battleship with a handful of pebbles.

posted Aug 24

Travis Morgan says:

I don't think someone should have to swear on the bible in court.

posted Jul 16

Omar Blasgen says:

the real question for me is......was separation of church and state to keep the state out of the church, or the other way around? if one is religious and he is given the right to vote. one would assume that they would vote in accordance with his belief.

posted Jul 16

Pastor Chris says:

Not just the voter, how about the polotician. We (depending on which side we lay) would like our representative to see our side of the issue (our moral/ ethics) or we would like to see them as objective as possible, which has proven to be quite difficult.

Can a person be objective and still believe a set of morals/ ethics?

posted Jul 17

Corey says:

Pastor Chris - what I've found to be the most pervasive problem with this issue is keeping a complete balance between the establishment clause of the 1st amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") and the free exercise clause ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). Most people prefer one over the other.

Related to this is the way people confuse the issue of "Church & State" with the issue of "Religion & Politics." In your post you ask if "religion & politics" should be separate. Religion & politics will never be separate...nor should they be. However, Church & State should and must be separate. I'm saddened by the number of people who consider these two issues synonymous and assume that since the institutions of church and state are supposed to be separate, then so should the ideas. The 1st amendment calls for the separation of two institutions...two entities, Church & State. Religion & politics, however, will never be separate. To do that, you would have to make sure that all political candidates are atheists, and that any citizen who claims to be religious doesn't vote.

Stephen Prothero put it well: "Thanks to the establishment clause, American government is secular by law. Thanks to the free exercise clause, American society is religious by choice."

posted Aug 16

Travis Morgan says:

If we were to prove there is a God, and God is the ruler and creator of man, I would think that such a relationship would be quite direct.

As far as determinism goes, are you talking about Hard Determinism, Soft Determinism, Causal Determinism, etc...?

posted Jul 2

Pastor Chris says:

The analogy that usually teach is that it looks like a tounament bracket only working in reverse. Starting with one decision that has a series of results. Those results lead to more choices that have another set of results. God, being all-knowing, has a desired course that he would like us to follow. Being the imperfect people we are he is constantly leading and guiding us through these choices like a maze to end up with the desired result that is the best for us and for those around us. (this is only an analogy)

If he were to force his will there would be no free will on our end.

**Travis is it possible to believe in something without proof?

posted Jul 3

T. C. says:

Hi Travis,

I take it youre not a believer. Thats fine. But im afraid im not as knowledgeable in philosophical categories of determinism as you seem to be. The question was more theological in direction. I was looking for explanations of this relationship from Calvinists, Arminianists, Molinists, and Open Theists. You are welcome to describe how you view the relationship of atheistic determinism on freedom if you have such a view.

Regarding proof for the existence of God, arent we much past that? What i mean is, that sounds to me like a purely rational exercise. In my estimation, pure rationalism (at the expense of experiential "knowing") has seemed to have gone the way of the Dodo. Most of my atheistic and agnostic friends grant that faith can and should be grounded in more than just reason. As for me, i can attest that rational proofs are severely deficient in commanding my trust. If that is all i had to go on, id be agnostic. Thankfully, it is not.

My prayer for you (and not in a condescending way, but as a fellow human and thinker) is that you might entertain evidences for faith that go beyond reason but not against it.

posted Jul 3

Travis Morgan says:

"Travis is it possible to believe in something without proof?" - People do it all the time do they not? People once believed the world was flat, and if you were to walk to the edge of earth, you could even fall off.

"I take it youre not a believer" - I believe in the pursuit of truth.

I entertain all ideas and evidences that I am exposed too, so It appears that your prayer was answered before it was even submitted.

posted Jul 3

Pastor Chris says:

Maybe this truth should be pursued. (?)

posted Jul 3

T. C. says:

Travis,

I hope you didnt take offense to my post. I am not here proselytizing or just to argue. I am glad you are seeking truth and i pray you find it. However, i think you missed the point of some of my remarks.

You said: "I entertain all ideas and evidences that I am exposed too, so It appears that your prayer was answered before it was even submitted."

This is great, but it isnt what i was getting at. What i was getting at was that perhaps truth can be arrived at through reason AND experience. This is what i meant by "evidences that go beyond reason but not against it." Reason is certainly a crucial tool for finding truth. However, im not sure it is the only tool we have.

posted Jul 3

Travis Morgan says:

"Maybe this truth should be pursued. (?)" - Chris, When you say "this truth" this implies you've already pursued the subject matter and determined it to be true. So, If you are holding the answers in your hand, then what are you looking for?

T.C. I'm glad you know what your getting at.

posted Jul 3

T. C. says:

"T.C. I'm glad you know what your getting at."

I dont understand. What does this mean?

posted Jul 3

Pastor Chris says:

Referencing old posts and replies I got the vibe that you view 'truth' very relative so I proposed that 'this truth' in our 'sea of truths' might be one to look further into. I was implying that it seems you havent pursued it.

posted Jul 4

Travis Morgan says:

So give me an example of an old post or reply that gives you the vibe that I view "truth" as "very relative".

Also, what makes it seem as though I haven't pursued this in which you regard as true?

and you didn't answer my question to your statement - "Maybe this truth should be pursued. (?)" - Chris, When you say "this truth" this implies you've already pursued the subject matter and determined it to be true. So, If you are holding the answers in your hand, then what are you looking for?

posted Jul 4

Pastor Chris says:

"Yes, things are what they are. But things are not always necessarly what they appear to be." "What's true one moment may not be true the next,"

I could be mistaken as to what relative truth might be but these sound like your holding that truth is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe subjective would have been a better choice of words. Thats what has given me this vibe, so when i stated 'this truth' it was in a proposed world of many truths.

"If we were to prove there is a God, and God is the ruler and creator of man, I would think..." sounds that the truth of a relationship with (a christian judeo) God hasnt been pursued.

Yes I am not in the pursuit of finding out if there is a God of not. I believe to have found Him and now the pursuit of my life is to know Him more and more. I have found my wife and I love her dearly so I have given up the pursuit of a wife. Now I long to know her greater and greater. This has proven itself to be a life-long quest. (knowing my wife and God)

posted Jul 5

Travis Morgan says:

On the contrary, I do not believe that truth is subjective (the theory that something is true simply because one believes it to be so) rather, I feel truth to be independent of our beliefs.

"things are what they are. But things are not always necessarily what they appear to be" suggest just that, we should not judge a book by it's cover. If you were to judge a book based on it title alone and determine it to be an autobiography, while in fact it is a cookbook. Your determination of it being an autobiography based its title alone does not make it an autobiography. It's still a cookbook despite what you believe it to be.

My statement, "What's true one moment may not be true the next" suggest that "truth" may be relative to time. For example, lets say I bought a dog 5 years ago to date. 5 years ago on the day I bought the dog, if I were to say, "today, I bought a dog." it would be true. If today, I were to say, "today, I bought a dog." it would be false, for I didn't buy the dog today, I bought it 5 years ago. I could say, "I bought a dog 5 years ago" and that would be true, but it's a different statement.

"If we were to prove there is a God, and God is the ruler and creator of man..." states that God has not been proven to exist for a fact. For if it were proven as a fact, it would change the world, religions, philosophies, and life as we know it.

I do not see how these are statements suggesting a subjective outlook of truth.

posted Jul 5

Pastor Chris says:

so you do you agree that relationship with (a Judeo-Christian) God hasnt been pursued?

:edit:
My aim in this group and in so many other places and ways is to try and promote the mystery and greatness of my relationship w/God. It seems too many times that God is reduced to an equation to be solved, a puzzle to be figured out or a fossil to be discovered, but He is so much more. I am everyday humbled and taken back by the grandness that I see in everything around me. Instead of attempting to corner or figure out God I am taken to a place of wide-eyes and a kneeling posture in this world screaming the testament of His greatness.

-just a personal thought... I'm enjoying my time with you fellas. You guys are awesome!

posted Jul 5

Omar Blasgen says:

Just a random thought.....If god is, let's say nature itself (Hoping to avoid the old man in space connotation), and we came into existence due to millions of years worth of natural processes then one could easily say that god created us. could we not? Now take this a step further....If we are ruled by the laws of physics (Nature) then one could also say that we are ruled by god. The more we understand the laws of nature, the more like god we are (Being like and understanding god the goal of most, if not all, theology). Step three.....god has a purpose or plan: nature has taken a course. There are many courses it could have taken, but the nature we see around us is the path it took. Whether this path was chosen by the methods of chance or by intent, it was still chosen outside of our control.

My biggest complaint of those both for and against the idea of god is what seems to be the "old man in space" connotation. It seems that god is accepted and rejected by this thought process alone. I am not saying that the "god is nature" route is necessarily correct, but its connotation makes more sense to me. especially since even in the bible god refers to himself (He/she/whatever: is it really that important?) as I Am. Every other name was given by some human character in the bible. This name is the same thing as dharma: the principle or law that orders the universe, or one of the basic, minute elements from which all things are made.

The details in the first paragraph were mostly to make a point (Millions of years/thousands of years: again does it really matter either way. By this i mean, would, say, christianity and its concepts crumble over night if the earth has been around for longer than thousands of years?). This was the direction I was hoping to go with my who/what is god post earlier. Why does either opinion (God is good/there is no god) seem to be so heavily reliant on the idea that god is an old man in space, so to speak?

posted Jul 5

Travis Morgan says:

That was a long random thought. Anyways, this seems to hint a bit to the Tao, which I have found to make more sense then many other avenues I have researched.

I think your question is good, for I am equally curious to hear some solid explanations with supporting evidence of this idea of "an old man in space." that many refer to as "god."

posted Jul 5

Omar Blasgen says:

Ok, it started as a random thought then grew from there. :)
It is funny you mention the Tao because the early members of christianity called themselves followers of "the way", not followers of christ or christians. Pop quiz: can anyone tell us what Tao means?

posted Jul 7

Travis Morgan says:

I'm not sure if anyone can, but here is some information on it.

posted Jul 7

The decent American says:

Travis....see top picture for "Old man in space".......LOL!

posted Jul 7

Travis Morgan says:

hehe, that's good. :)

posted Jul 7

Pastor Chris says:

I think when you have God showing up in a huge black cloud with thunder and lightning in Exodus that kinda makes him seem stand-offish. Then the numerous times you hear christ say "my father in heaven...", that gives off the notion of him being the old man in space. I'm not saying that he is but it seems that the writers of the bible seem to color him that way in their attempt to personify God. They were doing their best to define the indefineable... a daunting task.

posted Jul 9

The decent American says:

I think you nailed it with..."Define the indefinable".......this is what gets us here in a "war of words" sometimes.......what ever you want to call it-him-her-it".....Buddha-god-Tao-allah---(etc-etc).....words can only describe the finite.....

posted Jul 10

Corey says:

Amerika, I think you're right. A lot of religious debate ends up being a war of words or a competition of who's smarter.

T.C., one thing that I believe is often left out of predestination vs. free will discussions is the fact that human lives are all tangled up with each other. For example, you hear a lot of people talk about "Path A" vs "Path B," whether God knows if they will choose the right path or the wrong path, and much of the discussion assumes that it's just us and God in this equation. But in life we're dealing with billions of human beings who all have free will, and that being the case, I could choose Path A, but someone else could choose Path B and screw me up. Our lives and decisions are entangled with those of others, and this is a complicated, messy web of free will that we live in.

One more interesting thing: The Bible, especially the Old Testament, doesn't seem concerned with presenting God as "all-knowing." It only presents God as One who is in relationship with the human race, and who responds and works based on their decisions. Interesting to think about.

posted Aug 17

Travis Morgan says:

Corey, how have you determined that we do indeed have "free-will?"

"It has been said that the mere flutter of a butterfly's wing can ultimately cause a typhoon halfway across the world."

posted Aug 19

Corey says:

Interesting question, Travis. I see no evidence to the contrary. I'd be interested to hear why you would challenge the assumption.

As far as the chaos theory quote that you found on my profile, that connects with me not as a statement of predestination or fate, but as a statement of the reality of the monumental consequences our choices can have.

posted Aug 20

Travis Morgan says:

Cory, these "choices" you refer to, are they too, not reactions to the actions before them? Is there a "choice" you have made that was not conceived through some sort of influence?

posted Aug 20

Corey says:

Travis - it sounds like we agree, we're just not defining terms in the same way. I would absolutely agree that every choice I make is in some way a reaction to choices and actions from before, and that every choice I make is guided by previous experience and influence. Given that, I would still say that I have "free will," and that it is not antithetical to recognizing the sort of cause and effect reality to our lives. I think all of these dynamics coexist. Though there is much that influences me and my choices (consciously and subconsciously), I still make choices, and I am responsible for those choices.

One reason I maintain this position is because there is a school of thought that sees human beings as nothing more than reactionary beings that are mere victims of their external influences. This is dangerous and degrading. Dangerous because it gives one permission to act irresponsibly, and degrading because humans are more than that.

As a pastor, I'm involved with care and counseling from time to time, and a major part of what psychotherapy tries to do is empower a person to rise above being a mere reactionary victim of their circumstances and influences. If free will is a myth or an illusion, there's no hope for anyone.

posted Aug 20

Travis Morgan says:

"If free will is a myth or an illusion, there's no hope for anyone" - this exactly why people don't want to believe it. It may not sound that appealing, but this doesn't mean it's not true. You said yourself that "I would absolutely agree that every choice I make is in some way a reaction to choices and actions from before, and that every choice I make is guided by previous experience and influence."

Take "death" for example. People don't like the idea that someday they will die. So they create this idea of an immortal spirit that continues to live on after you've died. The thought of death doesn't appeal to them, so they create a new thought that is more appealing to them.

People like to feel that they have control. Man is attached to this feeling of being in control. He even starts wars over control. Man wants to control the world. It gives him a sense of security and superiority. But deep down, we know that we do not have control. This scares people, so they continue to try to prove to themselves that they do.

You are correct that without free-will there will be something that needs to be done to enforce individual responsibility. How can one be held responsible for what one has no control over right? This is an issue that needs to be addressed, and should be. But we can't simply disperse of the idea just because we don't know how to deal with it. It is already present, but instead of acknowledging it and accepting it, people would rather believe they have control, and not deal with it. If this goes on... when will the wars ever end? How could there ever be peace if we all want control.

posted Aug 23

Corey says:

Well Travis, you must be smarter than me because, quite frankly, I'm confused. I mean, did you choose to write that response, or did all of the outside forces in your life compel you to do it? I'm assuming that what you would assert is that "choice" is an illusion. I quite frankly think that such a position is empircally false - unless you take the Matrix movies way too seriously. Would you actually say that a murderer or a rapist is not individually responsible for his or her behavior? Do you have children? How would you raise children to be responsible and successful with this kind of philosophy?

By the way, I said nothing about control. You and I absolutely agree on the issue of control. I completely agree, 100%, when you say: "People like to feel that they have control. Man is attached to this feeling of being in control. He even starts wars over control." That I understand and agree with. But control and choice are two completely different issues. I obviously have no control over what other people do, and this world is indeed a chaotic place. But if what we're saying here is that if I go upstairs to get a glass of water I'm not really choosing to do so, then I'm afraid I have to call that nonsense.

This isn't a position I've made up or created to make myself feel better, as you would seem to suggest. I'm just talking about what makes any logical sense whatsoever. As I see it and with all the available data, what seems to me to be the logical conclusion is that human beings live with both dynamics: choice & consequence; nature & nurture; free-will & influence. I'm very interested: what would you have me tell the next abused wife I counsel? The next alcoholic? That they really don't have the choice to improve their lives?

posted Aug 24

Travis Morgan says:

You are obviously a compatibilist. And I a determinist so we could go back and forth all day. :)

posted Aug 24

Corey says:

Thank goodness we have Wikipedia to help us understand what the heck we are, huh? :)

That's very interesting. I found something in the determinism article that I would agree with: "Determinists believe that the level to which human beings have influence over their future is itself dependent on present and past." I think I would agree with that statement...at least to an extent.

Oh well - as is often the case, we're running into a semantic problem here. Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion, Travis.

posted Aug 24

Travis Morgan says:

"Thank goodness we have Wikipedia to help us understand what the heck we are, huh?" - How did the information get put into wikipedia :)

It's always a pleasure Corey. Hope you stay involved.

posted Aug 24

Travis Morgan says:

Corey you said, "By the way, I said nothing about control. You and I absolutely agree on the issue of control. I completely agree, 100%, when you say: "People like to feel that they have control. Man is attached to this feeling of being in control. He even starts wars over control." That I understand and agree with. But control and choice are two completely different issues"

I shall explain. The reason "control" comes into play in this discussion is because if one does not have "free-will", if one does not have a "choice" then one does not have "control." As I mentioned and you agreed that people are attached to this feeling of control. Therefore, people woul rather believe they have free-will as it supports their passion for control.

posted Aug 24

Pastor Chris says:

HAHAHAHAHAHAH ahahahaha.... The funny thing is being a pastor I know some other churches and ministries that are like that... and we all get painted with the same brush (argh)

seriously funny!

posted Jul 2