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.

[JoeyKnothead]

beto wrote:

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.

Dude, can you say that in two syllable words? (I reserve the right to request one syllable words)

[Zzyzx]

.

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

The definition of "restriction" is "to confine within bounds" (Merriam Webster)

That does NOT allow exceptions for limitations that are happily complied with (or self-imposed). They are STILL restrictions according to the definition.

Whether the adherents like, want or accept the limitations imposed by ANY system of secular or sectarian control is immaterial to the question of whether those limitations exist.

It may be appropriate to say that many religionists do not desire freedom from the restrictions inherent in following their chosen beliefs. But it is NOT appropriate to say that they are not limited by belief.

[Allie]

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.

Ahaha, alright, sorry.

"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.

Okay, that makes sense, and I can't really argue with someone's definition. Good reply, good reply.

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).

Hmm, here comes the science. I'm not saying that natural selection didn't ever happen, but if everything in such a world as this was to come to be by an explosion, and then natural selection, it just doesn't make much sense to me. Male and female, all of the different kinds of plants, how perfectly the earth is positioned, gravity that is just right... I've heard someone of authority say the chances of this all happening by chance is almost negligent.

But whoa, I'll stop there, debating science and religion really isn't my cup of tea.

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?

No. Some Atheists probably don't worry about any of those things. I do, however, say from what I see in my school and every day life, most people I see are extremely self-absorbed, and most people I see are not Christians. I think it is because of the absence of God in their life that they feel the need to be super pretty, popular, or whaaattttever. If they have no need to worry about others, why should they? Of coarse, I am not saying anyone who claims to be Christian is selfless, and I am not saying that anyone who is not a Christian is selfish, but I do see more of the want to help others in my church than in my school.

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).

I think devotion to a god does have limitations, including my God, but in my limitations there is a deeper freedom, like the drug addict free of the temptation of drugs.

[Zzyzx]

.

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?

I do not agree with your definition of “freedom�. When defining words I find it helpful to consult a dictionary. Merriam Webster Dictionary defines freedom as:

1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another [Definition continues]

Your definition is very much at odds with a dictionary definition. Using words with personal or esoteric (including religious) definitions limits communication to those who understand and/or share and/or agree with your definition – and excludes all others.

In addition, your definition assumes two items that you CANNOT verify.

That you know the “right� restrictions

That you know “the truth�

You may think that you know “the truth� and that you know the “right restrictions� after reading religious books and listening to religionists speak (or write). However, here in debate forum, your claim is nothing more than a personal opinion and a claim that many or most will not accept.

To whom are you addressing your comments if you make claims that are not accepted by those to whom you appear to be speaking?

You ARE entitled to have an opinion that you know the “right� restrictions for YOU – and for no one else. That is a personal matter and a personal opinion. NOT a fact. Your “right� restrictions are not “right� for many of us who do not accept a belief system based upon invisible super beings.

The examples you choose do not clarify your definition – but add confusion.

Likewise you may THINK that you possess “truth� – but that ends with you and extends to no one else. For instance, I am not bound to honor your claim to possess “truth� because my understanding of “truth� is very different from yours AND is just as valid.

You may find that most Non-Theists do NOT claim to know “the truth� and that many or most Theists DO claim to know “the truth�. However, when asked to demonstrate that their knowledge IS “truth� they cannot do so (other than quoting from ancient texts written by people promoting their favorite religions and gods – which may be “proof� in church but not in debate).

[nygreenguy]

Hmm, here comes the science. I'm not saying that natural selection didn't ever happen, but if everything in such a world as this was to come to be by an explosion, and then natural selection, it just doesn't make much sense to me. Male and female, all of the different kinds of plants, how perfectly the earth is positioned, gravity that is just right... I've heard someone of authority say the chances of this all happening by chance is almost negligent.

Hey allie! Whats happening here is called an argument from ignorance. Evolution is a really complicated topic and it is hard to understand. But its complexity doesnt make it any less true.

For example, sometimes I put my iPod in my pocket and after 10 minutes I pull it out and its tangled all to heck. To me, it doesnt seem like there is ANY way that knot could have made itself in those 10 minutes, we also know that there wasnt someone in there (i hope!) making the knots!

But whoa, I'll stop there, debating science and religion really isn't my cup of tea.

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 do, however, say from what I see in my school and every day life, most people I see are extremely self-absorbed, and most people I see are not Christians.

I find this hard to believe because almost, if not more, than 75% of america calls themselves christian

[JoeyKnothead]

.

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

The definition of "restriction" is "to confine within bounds" (Merriam Webster)

That does NOT allow exceptions for limitations that are happily complied with (or self-imposed). They are STILL restrictions according to the definition.

Whether the adherents like, want or accept the limitations imposed by ANY system of secular or sectarian control is immaterial to the question of whether those limitations exist.

It may be appropriate to say that many religionists do not desire freedom from the restrictions inherent in following their chosen beliefs. But it is NOT appropriate to say that they are not limited by belief.

quit superimposing definitions on common farking logic. If someone agrees to be bound by an edict then by god they accept it.

[JoeyKnothead]

Jesus farking christ. Who bought zyzxyxzyxxyzyzyzyxyzrxyz the golldang dictionary?

Look in your book.

Look up the term.

Read between the farking lines.

[Allie]

Hello everyone, I think I'm about done with this topic. I will probably start another one later, on a different subject. I will answer the people who have posted that I haven't replied to, and then I think I'll be leaving, unless someone requests me to stay(Which you can do, I'm just a little tired).

Hey allie! Whats happening here is called an argument from ignorance. Evolution is a really complicated topic and it is hard to understand. But its complexity doesnt make it any less true.

For example, sometimes I put my iPod in my pocket and after 10 minutes I pull it out and its tangled all to heck. To me, it doesnt seem like there is ANY way that knot could have made itself in those 10 minutes, we also know that there wasnt someone in there (i hope!) making the knots!

But whoa, I'll stop there, debating science and religion really isn't my cup of tea.

I heard from someone else (who knows what they're talking about, unlike me) that the chances were almost negligent. So I will then have to disagree with you, and say that this one argument was not from ignorance. I'm not saying that I know a lot about evolution (because I don't) but I do think that my argument was valid.

I'm going to assume that you repeating my 'cup of tea' line was a mistake, and your speaking with lots of exclamation marks isn't a sign of disrespect. I'm not going to disrespect you, please don't disrespect me.

I find this hard to believe because almost, if not more, than 75% of america calls themselves christian

Well, usually my friends are one of two things. They either haven't thought much about God, or they think they believe in something, but they aren't sure what. If asked if they were a Christian, they might say yes, but they don't act any different from anyone else, and they don't even know the definition of a Christian.
So I suppose if you count the people who are completely ignorant of religion, yet claim to be a part of it, then I see more 'Christians' every day. I still see many non-Christians every day regardless.

[Allie]

I do not agree with your definition of “freedom�. When defining words I find it helpful to consult a dictionary. Merriam Webster Dictionary defines freedom as:

Yes, the dictionary definition will be different.

Your definition is very much at odds with a dictionary definition. Using words with personal or esoteric (including religious) definitions limits communication to those who understand and/or share and/or agree with your definition – and excludes all others.

In addition, your definition assumes two items that you CANNOT verify.

That you know the “right� restrictions

That you know “the truth�

You may think that you know “the truth� and that you know the “right restrictions� after reading religious books and listening to religionists speak (or write). However, here in debate forum, your claim is nothing more than a personal opinion and a claim that many or most will not accept.

To whom are you addressing your comments if you make claims that are not accepted by those to whom you appear to be speaking?

You ARE entitled to have an opinion that you know the “right� restrictions for YOU – and for no one else. That is a personal matter and a personal opinion. NOT a fact. Your “right� restrictions are not “right� for many of us who do not accept a belief system based upon invisible super beings.

The examples you choose do not clarify your definition – but add confusion.

Likewise you may THINK that you possess “truth� – but that ends with you and extends to no one else. For instance, I am not bound to honor your claim to possess “truth� because my understanding of “truth� is very different from yours AND is just as valid.

You may find that most Non-Theists do NOT claim to know “the truth� and that many or most Theists DO claim to know “the truth�. However, when asked to demonstrate that their knowledge IS “truth� they cannot do so (other than quoting from ancient texts written by people promoting their favorite religions and gods – which may be “proof� in church but not in debate).

Theists usually do think they know the truth, to be sure.
I am making comments to everyone on this board, of coarse--I am showing my position. Of coarse not everyone (if anyone) will accept my beliefs, but why should that stop me from defending it?
And I will admit that I was assuming that everyone would understand my definition. I apologize to anyone who did not.


So I think I'll be off, now. If someone requests me to reply to something, I will, but I would rather not. Go ahead though, if you have something that's burning a hole in your head.

So thank you, everyone, for being such a good and pleasant group of debaters.
I'll probably talk to you all later. bye bye.

[Goat]

Hello everyone, I think I'm about done with this topic. I will probably start another one later, on a different subject. I will answer the people who have posted that I haven't replied to, and then I think I'll be leaving, unless someone requests me to stay(Which you can do, I'm just a little tired).

Hey allie! Whats happening here is called an argument from ignorance. Evolution is a really complicated topic and it is hard to understand. But its complexity doesnt make it any less true.

For example, sometimes I put my iPod in my pocket and after 10 minutes I pull it out and its tangled all to heck. To me, it doesnt seem like there is ANY way that knot could have made itself in those 10 minutes, we also know that there wasnt someone in there (i hope!) making the knots!

But whoa, I'll stop there, debating science and religion really isn't my cup of tea.

I heard from someone else (who knows what they're talking about, unlike me) that the chances were almost negligent. So I will then have to disagree with you, and say that this one argument was not from ignorance. I'm not saying that I know a lot about evolution (because I don't) but I do think that my argument was valid.

I'm going to assume that you repeating my 'cup of tea' line was a mistake, and your speaking with lots of exclamation marks isn't a sign of disrespect. I'm not going to disrespect you, please don't disrespect me.

I find this hard to believe because almost, if not more, than 75% of america calls themselves christian

Well, usually my friends are one of two things. They either haven't thought much about God, or they think they believe in something, but they aren't sure what. If asked if they were a Christian, they might say yes, but they don't act any different from anyone else, and they don't even know the definition of a Christian.
So I suppose if you count the people who are completely ignorant of religion, yet claim to be a part of it, then I see more 'Christians' every day. I still see many non-Christians every day regardless.

Ah yes, the 'arguement from improbability' That is another 'logical fallacy'. It makes some bad assumptions, one of the assumptions is that there is a 'goal' and we are it.