Anyone from the early '70s?

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[EverAStudent]

It occurred to me that I am making a lot of statements that other members of this forum might not agree with, but I'm not actually debating, because I don't want to prove a point or change anyone's mind. Just explaining where I've landed philosophically and with regard to religion, which is apparently quite different from many on this forum.

If any of the things I'm saying about how I came to believe what I do are disturbing to anyone, I regret that, and would reconsider how to express those things truthfully, but in ways that would not cause anyone discomfort.

I do sincerely hope that others are made uncomfortable with what is said, but in no way do I want them to be tempted to sin.  Discomfort should cause us to pray for others, to sympathize, and to seek to help.  Discomfort should not be a cause for anyone to seek to sin (the biblical meaning of "offended").

Wow, that was quite a story/history!  I suspect we are also only seeing the tip of your iceberg.

Again, let me state, there is nothing wrong or undesirable about having different viewpoints expressed on this forum.  But in this area (The Healing Forum), I will not debate.  I like enriching exchanges of opinions, especially studied opinions, but not here.

For entirely different reasons than yours, our family eschews the phrase "I pledge allegiance" to anything.  Pledges (oaths and vows) are improper, so we substitute, "I give allegiance" to whatever.  The allegiance I give to earthly institutions can be withdrawn if the institution becomes too corrupt, and "pledges" do not allow for such flexibility.  It was for this reason I refused to "pledge" my lifelong allegiance to GCI when they demanded I do so.

There is nothing I find personally objectionable to protesting the KKK, the Black Panthers, police brutality, or crimes like the torturng of prisoners.  In fact, John McCain has been very vocal during his political career that Gitmo and other institutions ought to be sat upon to stop such abuses, having endured torture himself.  I would like to see Christians take such stances en masse.

I will have to look up Kant's philosophy to see what it is that you find appealing.  I Kant remember enough of what he believed to even have an opinion.  Or, you could save me the trouble and just tell me what it is about his philosophy that you have found helpful.

Thanks for sharing so openly!  Personally, I just love talking to people, so if this gets old, just tell me to go away.

[swampwitch]

EverAStudent, here is an explanation of Kant's Categorical Imperative:

Kant's Moral Philosophy
First published Mon Feb 23, 2004; substantive revision Sun Apr 6, 2008
Kant argued that moral requirements are based on a standard of rationality he dubbed the “Categorical Imperative” (CI). Immorality thus involves a violation of the CI and is thereby irrational. Other philosophers, such as Locke and Hobbes, had also argued that moral requirements are based on standards of rationality. However, these standards were either desire-based instrumental principles of rationality or based on sui generis rational intuitions. Kant agreed with many of his predecessors that an analysis of practical reason will reveal only the requirement that rational agents must conform to instrumental principles. Yet he argued that conformity to the CI (a non-instrumental principle) and hence to moral requirements themselves, can nevertheless be shown to be essential to rational agency. This argument was based on his striking doctrine that a rational will must be regarded as autonomous, or free in the sense of being the author of the law that binds it. The fundamental principle of morality — the CI — is none other than the law of an autonomous will. Thus, at the heart of Kant's moral philosophy is a conception of reason whose reach in practical affairs goes well beyond that of a Humean ‘slave’ to the passions. Moreover, it is the presence of this self-governing reason in each person that Kant thought offered decisive grounds for viewing each as possessed of equal worth and deserving of equal respect.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

The guiding principle of loving my neighbor, loving life, and light and walking in love and grace does not alter regardless of reward or lack of it, or even of a codified rationalization for it. It is simply a matter of character to aspire to that, and to pursue that aspiration is not only a rational choice, but a joyful one. I don't know how to put a name on such faith, if that is what it is.

Hope you're having a great evening, EAS. The weather here is now just beautiful, the sky is deep blue, the sun clear and bright, and the humidity is no longer so high as to require scuba gear. We're happy for now, and I hope this holds for tomorrow, because Saturday is a huge day for the relief work, because so many volunteers are using their weekends.

Y'all take care, and have a great weekend.

[theresearchpersona]

Well written summary. If I followed that philosophy (don't, but "if") I would have to ask 'what principles', as I think rationally there could be many competing sets of principles that fulfilled that CI. I don't know about a philosophy arguing wholly against people being subdued by passions (whether Theologically or from a scientific perspective).

Anyway, it sounds much like modern libertarianism (political Kantianism, maybe?).

Speaking philosophically, though, I would have to consider it incomplete to depict man as a rational agent: I think he has the capacity of being rational, sure, however a rational agent "must" do nothing; there's an old saying something along the lines "man is not a rational, but a rationalizing creature". I think perhaps one could say "man can be rational, but is a rationalizing creature". As one person put it, man takes what is rational and puts it into service for his desires. Frankly said, man does have desires, and he is often irrational.

Interesting to know, though.

[EverAStudent]

Hi Swampy!  Beautiful day indeed!!!!  (I think we are about 1200 miles north of you.)

Love to hear that y'all.  I have not heard that used for a number of years now, since leaving work to go back to school.

Hope your volunteer work went well.  My family spent the day cleaning the basement and putting things out on the front lawn for a "garage sale."  As we all know, the sale is not so much to make money but to rid ourselves of junk without feeling bad for throwing it away.  My disfunctional lawnmower went for $3, and the buyer was glad to get it (he mumbled something about spare parts)!

Perhaps the best part of the day was that I got to spend time with our neighbors (not easy to do in our neighborhood).  Sadly, after spending a little time with one, he told me his wife was divorcing him, and he does not know why.  Another was downright perplexed when I invited him over to our sale and tossed him a new pocket knife I was trying to sell "just to say hi."  Something for nothing???? What's wrong with that guy?  What fun!

If I understand what you wrote about Kant, his basic premise is that autonomous will, freewill, is the moral imperative, making the free agent (the man) his own moral standard ("the author of the law").  I can see where that philosophy sounds appealing.  However, doesn't it also come with a high responsibility?  I mean, if we are our own standard of conduct, then when we violate our own standards, how do we redeem ourselves to ourselves?  If we just forgive ourselves each of our own failings, then are we not continually lowering our standards with the potential that someday our standards are so low as to be of no real value?  Yes, I know this is a no-debate forum, but, this is philosophy, and philosophy was made to be debated :).

Enjoy the rest of the weekend!

[swampwitch]

Hi, EAS. I really included that discussion more to clarify my outlook than to persuasively state a position.

The interesting part is what you say about responsibility. Oh, yes, we're talking about a huge responsibility, but when I really have clarity in that area, I realize that responsibity, or duty, and privilege are the same. My children are a responsibility, of course, but that is such a small part of it, and the bigger part is the joy and the privilege. Duty is not so crucial if nothing precious and beautiful and worth loving and cherishing is involved, but when that is the case, it can also never be onerous, and in fact, is hardly even felt.

The duty to love and to be responsible and kind and respectful of others' lives and welfare is  never altered by circumstances, their behavior, or any laws or conventions of humans to the contrary.

It is also, if we are in our "right" minds, never a hard or bitter thing.

This is just how I try to live, but I'd never stand and debate anyone on its efficacy for them, as well.

Hope everyone who reads this is having a lovely evening.

Swampy

[EverAStudent]

The duty to love and to be responsible and kind and respectful of others' lives and welfare is never altered by circumstances, their behavior, or any laws or conventions of humans to the contrary.

So you have gone far beyond Kant in your life philosophy.  Actually, I must admit to being in agreement with what you wrote (quoted above).

As do you, I  believe that our duty and responsibility is to love.  However, I would add that this duty is defined by our love for God and also our love for others.  

And this love is only possible because God first loved us.  First He loved us when He created us.  Second He loved us when He gave Himself as a sacrifice for our sins instead of simply destroying us when we rebelled against Him.  So we learned this idea of love from Him.

Yes, it was a wonderful evening here.  But, we'll be watching for that next tropical storm in your area.  And we will contiue to pray on your behalf.  Stay dry.

[Jack]

Swampwitch, I wanted to say that there are others who read this who largely agree with you on your political views.  They may not be in the majority, but they are here.  I personally have come to a worldview that values personal freedom and personal responsibility above all else, I don't really know exactly how I've arrived here, but here I am.  I hope I'll move along the path as I continue in life.  I have become rather disillusioned with the modern churches' involvement in politics, and think that involvement is truly holding the church back.
I would like to add that I very much enjoy the way you write.  It is good to read thoughts so well expressed.  No offense to anyone else, but its refreshing to see.  So please don't purposefully make your sentences any shorter.