Does Christianity restrict your freedom?

[Allie]

I am here to talk about what I see as the misconception of all Christians being un-free.

Before we begin, however, (the people who have seen me before will be reading this again) I will say that I come to you in the humblest of circumstances, I am still very young.

So, I will start off -- I do not believe that Christians are not free. Oh, and before I begin, know that many of my arguments will be repetitions of what Ben Stuart has said. I listened to one of his sermons ('Shouldn't we Find our own Way?' -- Free on iTunes) and have been inspired to start this debate.

A response to some general commandments in the Bible, which I know will come up:
Yes, there are commandments in the Bible; they were given to us because of Christ's love for us, they were given to us for our own well-being. He wants us to live fully satisfying, joyful, and fulfilled lives, which we could not do without his guidance.

I'm not sure how much I should say before I actually start debating (Oh, the lack of experience!) so I'll leave it at that.

Okay, I'm ready. Go ahead.

[Beto]

I will tell you my definition of freedom, and I will tell you why I have this definition. My definition of freedom is not the absence of all restrictions, nor is it the presence of all restrictions--it is the presence of the right restrictions, and the knowledge of the truth.

Now, why should you agree with me?
I'll give you some examples. In America, people are considered 'free', not because there is a complete absence of laws and restrictions, but because of the presence of the right laws and restrictions.

How about this: If you threw a fish onto your lawn, away from it's fishbowl, would it be free? No, it needs the restriction of water to do what it is meant to do, and to be free.

And about the truth part..
Let's take money as an example. Most people think 'If I had more money, or if I had more things, I would be happy.' If that is true, then why have millionaires committed suicide? It is from lack of the truth people think that, so they are never free from their longing for more money.


Do you agree with my definition?

Can't say I do. You make astute observations, but arrive at what I think is an erroneous conclusion. Your understanding that "freedom" relates to a society's perception of "truth" and "right", reveals the subjectiveness of an abstract concept. One that is inherently unattainable, although a worthy and socially beneficial goal. In a society, an individual's "freedom" will be always be dependent on the "freedom" of individuals that interact with you. For that reason, one can only have "freedom" in its absolute expression, when others have none.

This is where our definition of joy differs. I believe joy comes from God alone; it, to me, is a deep inner peace. Happiness is something that can happen to anyone, for any number of reasons, and I think joy often breeds happiness, but I do not think when one is happy, one is always joyful.

So, aside from the 'joy' part, are you free without my God's guidance? (I think that was what you were asking, correct me if I'm wrong) I do not believe you have the deeper freedom that I have, no.

Well, I appreciate the honesty.

I don't have to worry about many things that non-Christians worry about (I am not opposed to writing out a list for you, if you want it) and that makes me freer than a non-Christian in my eyes. I have a Bible verse that you have probably heard before that sums it up:

Quote:
John 8:31-32 "Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."

I actually relate to that. Since I think the "truth" is that no god exists, I am free from the relevant considerations.

I don't quite understand why you think "worry" is a "limitation of freedom". I think this is a non-sequitur. Would you elaborate?

[Allie]

Allie,

Respectfully and gently:

Are ALL Christians free to do ALL of the following and stay within the “good graces� (or approved doctrine or behavior) of their sect?

1. Marry anyone of their choice regardless of that person’s religious affiliations or absence thereof?

2. Participate in other religions or honor other gods?

3. Raise their children in different faiths?

4. Refuse to attend religious services?

5. Dress and groom themselves as they wish?

6. Eat whatever food they desire?

7. Speak openly against church officials?

Are ANY Christians free to do ALL of the above?

All of us probably realize that the honest answer to all of the above questions is “NO� because many sects insist upon limitation of choices in each of the areas mentioned.


Limitation of choices IS limitation of freedom to choose whether the individual agrees to those limitations or not. Even if believers WANT the limitations, they are still limitations, so one cannot say they do not exist.

I will say that limitations exist, but those limitations do not restrict freedom according to my definition. I will also say that I think it is a good, logical definition. What do you think?

And to number 7, I will say that people should be allowed to disagree with church officials. The Bible has many passages that can be taken one way or the other, (for example, the camel through the eye of the needle passage, or the parable of the sower of the seeds passage) and one should not be looked down upon for thinking in a different way than the officials. Of coarse, there is a difference between pleasantly disagreeing and causing disruption and division in the church. See what I mean?

Oh, and to number 4--I don't think it is particularly bad to not attend church every once in a while, although I don't know about other religions. Things come up, and my church wouldn't look down on anyone for missing a day, because almost everyone does. (In fact, I don't know anyone who has never missed a day)

I beleive that God wants us to be free. Following the commandments given to us will increase our freedom. Disobeying the commandments will limit our freedom.

The choices we make can inhibit or empower our freedom. For example, if I use my freedom of choice to abuse a harmful substance, I will become addicted. That addiction will limit my freedom in the future.

Commandments that come from God make us free. Commandments that come from men tank away our freedom.

Oh, Bravo! Bravo! I can't say I agree with the whole post, but the addiction example is perfect!

Everyone, see this example. You could use your 'freedom' to use a drug that is bad for you, but then you will get addicted. I think I am more free when I am not allowed to use the drug, then when I have the choice to use the drug and the option to mess up my life. This is how God's will is for us. It is not to restrain us from things we would enjoy, but to keep us from things that would destroy us, like lies, adultery, and theft. Most people consider these as common moral values anyways, but it seems when it is Christianity, people think it is restricting their freedom. Does that make you think?

Religion doesn't restrict the freedoms of its adherents, as they are more than happy to comply.

It does however, try to restrict the freedoms/rights of others. And it does so sometimes underhandedly, fraudulently, and hatefully. Here are two examples from Georgia, my home town.

Ga's current Gov, Sonny Perdue is a devoutly religious man. Part of his election platform was he would allow the 'people' of Ga to vote on the issue of gay marriage. He knew this vote would go his way, cause a lot of folks in Ga don't like the idea of gays, much less letting them marry. His stance on the issue was the people have a right to vote on ALL the issues concerning them. Full disclosure - the thought of two dudes together is not my idea of a good time (quote Seinfeld), but gay folks want to be able to marry each other, and I am a strict 'freedom for all' type of person. So anyway, good ol' Sonny is all cool with letting the folks vote on this issue. I think its plenty fair enough to say the biggest opposition to gay marriage comes from religious fundamentalists, or at least they are the most vocal against it. So of course the vote is held, and lo and behold 'teh gays' (quote Seinfeld) can't get married. Who'da thunk it in Georgia, right?

Then a year or so ago someone mentions the idea of selling alcohol in convenience stores on Sunday. Sonny quickly goes on record saying he won't allow the people of Georgia to vote on the issue. His rational? "It teaches time management." He won't allow it because he knows the vote won't go his way. Mind you now, Sunday is the only, THE ONLY day of this week that this otherwise legal product is not allowed to be sold. Sunday, the most popular day of the week for religious services. Sunday, when the preachers need to fill the seats to make their paycheck. (The liquor store lobby was also against it). I defy anyone who says this prohibition is for anything other than religious reasons, the liquor store lobby aside.

So here we have a deeply religious person in the position of allowing people to vote when he knows it will go his way, and rejecting any notion of a vote when he knows it won't.

Now I know that a lot of religious folks accept the freedom for all to do as they wish, but we must also agree that there are a lot of religious folks who will impose their version of morality on anyone.

These are only two examples, and I could mention more. When religious folk vote en mass to block the freedoms of people, then I say they are wrong, and I want nothing to do with them. I respect the rights of people to believe what they wish, and to live their lives as they wish, but I also demand the same respect shown to my freedoms.

Of course there will be those who say, "Idiot, just move." But the whole country is supposed to be free. From here in Ga, up to Maine, out to Hawaii, but not Kentucky, I got beat up there once. (jk)

Haha, that joke made me laugh.
But here I'll say something -- Know that not everyone who claims to be deeply religious are true Christians. Half the time they are arrogant(which a real Christian is not), and half the time they seem to think very wrong things, which alienate non-believers. I don't blame you for seeing arrogant Christians and thinking 'I don't want to be associated with them!', but know that they are probably deceiving even themselves. Did you know that when Jesus came down he challenged the religious leaders in a big way? They were extremely angry at Him--it shows that not all religious leaders are good.

SOO, I will not defend what this 'religious' man did, because it also seems wrong to me. And I believe you are right, Christians should not inflict their beliefs on others.


WHOA. That was A LOT of thinking. (I was going to say typing, but then I realized I really haven't typed that much, haha!) You guys are worth it, though, for sure. Hurray for a good debate!

[JoeyKnothead]

Allie wrote:

How about this: If you threw a fish onto your lawn, away from it's fishbowl, would it be free? No, it needs the restriction of water to do what it is meant to do, and to be free.

But if that fish hopped up out of that bowl and went out there onto the lawn, not only would I not stop it, I'd try to get it to cut the grass for me. In other words, what one person's 'just law' is anothers oppression. I'm not arguing for murder, but the more 'morality' based kind of laws that restrict otherwise good, decent people.

And about the truth part..
Let's take money as an example. Most people think 'If I had more money, or if I had more things, I would be happy.' If that is true, then why have millionaires committed suicide? It is from lack of the truth people think that, so they are never free from their longing for more money.

And what of the religious who have committed suicide? Your 'truth' here is kind of subjective, where truth is not. What is the lack of truth? Your interpretation of what is right and good? I don't think you lack a good, proper understanding of what is right and good. Its just that some folks have an equally valid argument for a different right and good. Often the religious will stake claim to 'truth' when in fact they are thinking of what they perceive as right and good. Like this - Is it true that birds are birds? Of course. Is it true that birds are stupid? Let's put that in a thread and see how many pages it generates.

So, aside from the 'joy' part, are you free without my God's guidance? (I think that was what you were asking, correct me if I'm wrong) I do not believe you have the deeper freedom that I have, no. I don't have to worry about many things that non-Christians worry about (I am not opposed to writing out a list for you, if you want it) and that makes me freer than a non-Christian in my eyes.

I am glad you have a deep joy, and a deep freedom, but your take might be different than another's. You worry about some of the same things I worry about. I worry about some things you don't worry about. You worry about some things I don't worry about. I worry about some of the same things you worry about.

What I'm arguing against is the idea of absolutes, in general and in 'freedom'. While you are comfortable in what your religion requires of you, it may not be acceptable to others. While you see a freedom in some of the rules of your religion, others will see a suppression of their freedom.

[JoeyKnothead]

Religion doesn't restrict the freedoms of its adherents, as they are more than happy to comply.

I think I have an issue with this one if we, for instance, think about women in some middle-eastern countries. Despite their obvious restriction of what some would consider fundamental rights, intrinsic to a condition of "freedom", many are happy to comply, wouldn't live differently if given the choice, and denounce other women on a regular basis. But I understand you're narrowing the scope of your comment. Others might not, and read more into it, don't you agree?

I think I'm with ya. What I'm getting at is so long as a person is willing to live within the confines of their religion, regardless of what 'I' think is 'right' then that person has accepted the 'restriction' as a freedom.

[Beto]

Everyone, see this example. You could use your 'freedom' to use a drug that is bad for you, but then you will get addicted. I think I am more free when I am not allowed to use the drug, then when I have the choice to use the drug and the option to mess up my life. This is how God's will is for us. It is not to restrain us from things we would enjoy, but to keep us from things that would destroy us, like lies, adultery, and theft. Most people consider these as common moral values anyways, but it seems when it is Christianity, people think it is restricting their freedom. Does that make you think?

Not really. That is a perfect example of when someone's freedom should be restricted, not only for the addict's sake, but also for the sake of those that come in contact with him. But unless you can show how "God's" restrictions on human freedom are beneficial (and you have to show how moral is "divine" in origin, contradicting much science has to say on the issue) the example doesn't make for a good argument. Before the Christian commandments, much of the morality claimed to spring from them was already in existence.

[Allie]

Oh look, I finish my huge post, and then there are more posts to reply to! Phew! Haha, here we go again.

Can't say I do. You make astute observations, but arrive at what I think is an erroneous conclusion. Your understanding that "freedom" relates to a society's perception of "truth" and "right", reveals the subjectiveness of an abstract concept. One that is inherently unattainable, although a worthy and socially beneficial goal. In a society, an individual's "freedom" will be always be dependent on the "freedom" of individuals that interact with you. For that reason, one can only have "freedom" in its absolute expression, when others have none.

Hmm. Well thought-out reply, and I really can't come back with anything to convince you of my definition.

Let me ask you something, though(and let the crowd in general respond to this, too): What is your definition of freedom?
It seems to me as if most of you are responding with the idea that freedom is indeed the absence of restraint. If it is the absence of restraint, doesn't that bother you? If everyone had complete absence of restraint, the world would not be a good place. Indeed, all of you put restraints on yourselves, but you don't dislike yourself for it. Do you guys get what I'm saying? I hope I make sense.

Well, I appreciate the honesty.

I'm glad that you like my honesty!

I actually relate to that. Since I think the "truth" is that no god exists, I am free from the relevant considerations.

I don't quite understand why you think "worry" is a "limitation of freedom". I think this is a non-sequitur. Would you elaborate?

Whoa, a non-sequitur. Nice word, I had to look it up.
Worry, I think, is a limitation of freedom because of the unnecessary restraints that come along with it. For example, I do not need to worry about what others think of me because I know my God loves me. Therefore I don't feel compelled to do many things, such as dress immodestly, wear make-up, do my hair all fancy, try to impress boys, act in a way I would not normally act, feel like the more money I make the more successful I am, etc. I am also free from the intense need of my 'perfect' future husband, which I felt before, which made my mind rather distraught. I think these things are huge limitations on my freedom, do you see what I mean? Do you agree with any of it?

Hi Allie. Glad to see you've decided to stay around and ask some thought provoking questions.

I think that in some ways there is freedom and in other ways there isn't.

Rules are good, because they give us boundaries and we can then happily do whatever we want within those boundaries without having to worry whether we are doing anything wrong.

However, with Christianity a lot of the rules are unclear, which causes a lot of division in the church and it's very difficult to decide who is wrong and who is right. This tends to bring confusion and condemnation. Those things bring restriction eg, "God might not like that. I better not do it". or "oh boy, I am such a lousy Christian.".

The other problem it people start to judge. "You are not a true Christian if you do that" or "You are not a true Christian if you don't do that". Unless you're the type of person who doesn't care what other Christians think, you're going to feel under a lot of peer pressure to behave and do things a certain way. Thus your freedom is severely restricted.

Hmm. That's an interesting point of view, I've never thought about it that way. I, for one, don't have friends that say I'm not a Christian if I mess up, but others might, and that would be ... lame. (Haha, sorry for the lack of an intelligent word) I say it's good to take advice from those who are wiser than you, and bad to listen to those who aren't as wise as you. I'd like to know what would make someone think they were a lousy Christian, however--most Christians agree on the base beliefs.

[Beto]

Religion doesn't restrict the freedoms of its adherents, as they are more than happy to comply.

I think I have an issue with this one if we, for instance, think about women in some middle-eastern countries. Despite their obvious restriction of what some would consider fundamental rights, intrinsic to a condition of "freedom", many are happy to comply, wouldn't live differently if given the choice, and denounce other women on a regular basis. But I understand you're narrowing the scope of your comment. Others might not, and read more into it, don't you agree?

I think I'm with ya. What I'm getting at is so long as a person is willing to live within the confines of their religion, regardless of what 'I' think is 'right' then that person has accepted the 'restriction' as a freedom.

But then again, they don't usually consider their "restrictions" as optional, being the "truth" and all. So "freedom" to be "restricted" seems paradoxical in that specific context, although it does make sense conceptually.

[Allie]

Not really. That is a perfect example of when someone's freedom should be restricted, not only for the addict's sake, but also for the sake of those that come in contact with him. But unless you can show how "God's" restrictions on human freedom are beneficial (and you have to show how moral is "divine" in origin, contradicting much science has to say on the issue) the example doesn't make for a good argument. Before the Christian commandments, much of the morality claimed to spring from them was already in existence.

I will reply to this one first, because I think I actually can. Woo!
I think the whole proving how moral is divine is for another debate, but I can tell you how God's commandment is good for people, as long as everyone chips in and uses a little common sense.

If anyone refuses to use common sense, I'm afraid I might not have much argument.

But here are a few: Do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery.
These are the ones I listed before. So why are these bad?
Well, most people consider them bad anyways, but I will briefly explain some of the badness that comes from each.

A lie is bad because it can result in emotional distress in the person who is lying and the person who is being lied to, as I am sure you all know. Hasn't everyone felt the betrayal of being lied to? It certainly isn't a good thing.

Stealing is a bad thing because not only will it land you in jail, but it will also make many people look down on you, and it will make the people you stole from (most likely) angry at you. How is that something you want the freedom to do?

Adultery is, perhaps, the worse of all of these. This destroys both people emotionally, makes the other people in the marriage/marriages extremely angry and leaves them feeling betrayed, degrades the sense of self-worth, and just causes emotional wrecks.

Would anyone here say that they would really reject God to have the freedom to do these things?

That, I think, would be lack of clear thinking, as far as those three sins are concerned.

But if that fish hopped up out of that bowl and went out there onto the lawn, not only would I not stop it, I'd try to get it to cut the grass for me. In other words, what one person's 'just law' is anothers oppression. I'm not arguing for murder, but the more 'morality' based kind of laws that restrict otherwise good, decent people.

But don't you think it would be better for the fish to know that it is not supposed to jump out of the bowl in the first place, so it doesn't mess up from lack of guidance and die?

And what of the religious who have committed suicide? Your 'truth' here is kind of subjective, where truth is not. What is the lack of truth? Your interpretation of what is right and good? I don't think you lack a good, proper understanding of what is right and good. Its just that some folks have an equally valid argument for a different right and good. Often the religious will stake claim to 'truth' when in fact they are thinking of what they perceive as right and good. Like this - Is it true that birds are birds? Of course. Is it true that birds are stupid? Let's put that in a thread and see how many pages it generates.

By lack of truth, I meant that money does not make you happy forever. My interpretation of right and good is what is in the Bible, and my base beliefs should be the same as other Christians, as far as I know. As far as the little stuff goes, I'm not sure that will even matter to God--although it might, it might.

I am glad you have a deep joy, and a deep freedom, but your take might be different than another's. You worry about some of the same things I worry about. I worry about some things you don't worry about. You worry about some things I don't worry about. I worry about some of the same things you worry about.

What I'm arguing against is the idea of absolutes, in general and in 'freedom'. While you are comfortable in what your religion requires of you, it may not be acceptable to others. While you see a freedom in some of the rules of your religion, others will see a suppression of their freedom.

Actually, I picked a funny word. I try not to 'worry' at all, because the Bible says not to worry. Haha, I just had to say that. I totally wasn't thinking about it when I wrote it out in the first place.

But yes, it is true that I am concerned with things you aren't, and you are concerned with things I'm not. The difference, I think, is that the things I'm concerned with cause me great peace and joy(when I know I'm doing something about the things that cause me concern) and give me a sense of purpose, rather than the fretting, insecure sort of concern.

Am I making sense? I feel like my brain is working overtime.

[Allie]

Oh, and I have another thing to say, just for everyone to think about.

Usually, the things that the Bible commands us to do are done with great good will towards God (by Christians, of coarse) because of his great sacrifice for us. Therefore the things that seem like great restrictions become very small, and loving God and loving people become the only really important things.

I am speaking from my own experience, and I just thought I'd share so you guys could think about it. Giving up some music, some maliciousness, and some cynical points of view really didn't matter once I was 'changed', even though beforehand I would have thought it a huge sacrifice.

Just thought I'd throw it out there.

[Beto]

If I can make a suggestion, it's easier to follow things if you answer each member in a separate post. Makes it easier to follow through.

On with business.

Let me ask you something, though(and let the crowd in general respond to this, too): What is your definition of freedom?

"Freedom" is absolute lack of restrictions. Obviously, it doesn't exist beyond a mental construct. There are only degrees of "freedom". It's good that some theists recognize they're not "free" from "God", anymore than they are from their country's government. But some theists want to have the cake and eat it.

It seems to me as if most of you are responding with the idea that freedom is indeed the absence of restraint. If it is the absence of restraint, doesn't that bother you? If everyone had complete absence of restraint, the world would not be a good place. Indeed, all of you put restraints on yourselves, but you don't dislike yourself for it. Do you guys get what I'm saying? I hope I make sense.

Plenty. There is an idea held by some, that when someone doesn't recognize "divine authority" they don't hold themselves bound or accountable to any sort of moral or ethical code, beyond a forceful obedience to a country's laws. What these people fail to demonstrate is how their morality derives of their "faith" or "beliefs", when science is very reasonable in its theories of sense of morality acquired through evolution and natural selection (genetical and memetical).

Worry, I think, is a limitation of freedom because of the unnecessary restraints that come along with it. For example, I do not need to worry about what others think of me because I know my God loves me. Therefore I don't feel compelled to do many things, such as dress immodestly, wear make-up, do my hair all fancy, try to impress boys, act in a way I would not normally act, feel like the more money I make the more successful I am, etc.

That sort of behavior is frequently derived from of a sense of rebellion towards the "establishment", without the need to infer "God". Do you assume all atheists are the opposite of what you describe?

I am also free from the intense need of my 'perfect' future husband, which I felt before, which made my mind rather distraught. I think these things are huge limitations on my freedom, do you see what I mean? Do you agree with any of it?

Some aspects can be limitations towards other goals in one's life. But you can hardly claim your personal priorities are inherently superior to others'. A mother of 9 can feel more accomplished with all her limitations, than a woman with no children and a very successful career (which has different limitations). In some cases, devotion to a god also bears limitations (especially from an atheist's perspective).