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've heard someone of authority say the chances of this all happening by chance is almost negligent.

Who said anything about "chance"? Evolution by natural selection isn't a matter of "chance". This is an age old straw man, a logical fallacy that you should be mindful not to incur in.

[Zzyzx]

.

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).

There is no pressure and no hurry to reply. Those are self-imposed limitations or conditions. All of us should feel free to take our time and revisit the topic when we are rested.

I heard from someone else (who knows what they're talking about, unlike me) that the chances were almost negligent.

It is not wise to base our statements or beliefs upon what we hear from “someone who knows what they are talking about�. When we do not know much about a subject we are not in a good position to evaluate the information presented by “someone who knows�. They may sound convincing to a novice while being regarded as a total phony by all or most who have experience and knowledge in the field.

Quite often religionists claim to know about the origin of the universe and the beginning of life – after reading parts of ONE book (and possibly its derivatives) – and attempting to dispute the information and knowledge of those who actually study such things in great detail for entire careers.

“I know better than those who study the field because I read a book� is poor logic.

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.

Allie, Google the term “Argumentum ad Ignorantum�. That is one of the most common errors in what is known as logic (or logical argument). Like many terms that one has a very specific meaning – which is basically:

The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been proved false, or that something is false only because it has not been proved true. A claim's truth or falsity depends upon supporting or refuting evidence to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary or contradictory claim.
<snip>
The fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is not designed by an Intelligent Creator does not prove that it is. Nor does the fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is designed by an Intelligent Creator prove that it isn't.
http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html

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.

Do you conclude, on the basis of your personal experience, that most citizens of the US are NOT Christians?

Yes, the dictionary definition will be different.

When talking about non-religious subjects do you insist upon using personal or special definitions?

If we each use terms with different meanings we CANNOT communicate. Each of the words in this sentence has a meaning that we generally accept. Therefore you know pretty much what I mean with the word “sentence�. You are not likely to think that I mean cereal.

Why can’t the same use of common definitions apply to sectarian subjects?

Theists usually do think they know the truth, to be sure.

All people probably think that they know “the truth� about some things. Most of us are likely to be rather certain of our gender, for example. However, we must be careful when attempting to extend our “truth� into areas that are less certain.

I am making comments to everyone on this board, of coarse--I am showing my position.

Simply showing or defining one’s position is NOT debate. Debate is defined as, “to contend in words; or to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments�. That is more than simply stating an opinion or position.

Of coarse not everyone (if anyone) will accept my beliefs, but why should that stop me from defending it?

You are encouraged to defend your position. Doing so successfully or credibly involves presenting readers with reason to accept what you say. Using words with “special� meanings and presenting religious dogma to non-believers is not likely to be very convincing. Claiming to “know the truth� when you cannot demonstrate that statement is true destroys credibility (but is common for Christians attempting to promote or defend their religion in debate format).

So I think I'll be off, now. If someone requests me to reply to something, I will, but I would rather not.

No one here would likely coerce you to post when you would rather not. I certainly would not (and do not request a reply to this post).

I, for one, would suggest that you read posts by some of the strong theist debaters to learn from them how to present theistic arguments effectively. Among the best are Cnorman, Micatala, Tselem, and MagusYanam (though the latter two post infrequently).

Among the worst are some who post most frequently and with anger or hostility. They display the worst characteristics associated with their belief system (intolerance, divisiveness, and elitism).

[OnceConvinced]

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.

Well the only one I every came across who said I was a lousy Christian was me. (Or I guess you could say it was the devil condemning me). Except now that I'm an ex-Christian often I come across people on-line who never knew me at all, who declare that I was never a true Christian to begin with. (I guess they too might be from the devil trying to condemn me )

I hope you will return, but it's entirely up to you. It can be a real task having to wade through a lot of posts, especially if you find people disagreeing with you. It's a pity that other Christians have not come in here to help lend you a little support.

[daedalus 2.0]

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.

So, if I tell you: kill that baby because I want you to live a full and happy life, you'd do it?

BTW, you seem sincere in that you don't know your subject matter. Why argue FOR Xianity? What made you a Xian?

would you REALLY like some atheist arguments? We can link a number of non-angry sites that may interest you. Atheism is not evil. It is simply a lack of belief in something that has no evidence. Like pixies.

[otseng]

Jesus farking christ. Who bought zyzxyxzyxxyzyzyzyxyzrxyz the golldang dictionary?

Moderator note:

Please abide by the rules. In particular:

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. Comments about another poster that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.
14. In general, all members are to be civil and respectful.

[Word_Swordsman]

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

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.

You listed several limitations on Christians that I agree, the answer is "no". Let me turn it back onto atheists. Are you saying an atheist is totally free to do whatever desired? Atheists ignore civil laws? They exercise no set of morals necessary for communities to exist together? If there are morals among atheists, where do they come from?

I propose that atheists are equally limited in "freedom" as Christians, while Christians are liberated from excesses of freedom through commandments that don't harm anyone. Our freedom sets us apart from the kosmos world system, identifying us as members of the Kingdom of God, of which you are not. You have no freedom in there, but are excluded from it and the benefits thereof.

I believe most sensible people would agree too much freedom for anyone would become a hazard for someone else, maybe a whole community. A man believing he has total freedom might choose to set fire to homes in his neighborhood. His liberty would be restricted if caught, though of course he had a "freedom" to engage in arson. What good is freedom in the absence of liberty?

It is in the best interest of any community to define a limitation of freedoms. Anyone exceeding a freedom to drive down streets at 90 mph will be restricted. The Kingdom of God also sets limits on certain freedoms. I could go around wearing pants at my knees, but wouldn't want to. It both makes no sense, and would be viewed by many as immoral and in my case, disgusting.

Try looking at "limitations" on Christians like a set of rules at a health spa. There you might learn you are not allowed to run around the pool. You might have to shower before swimming. It's all in the best interest of all the members and guests there. The rules there keep the spa in a state of adequate safety and comfort for all. The rules there set each person apart from a list of rules somewhere else, somewhat defining the members there.

[McCulloch]

Let me turn it back onto atheists. Are you saying an atheist is totally free to do whatever desired? Atheists ignore civil laws? They exercise no set of morals necessary for communities to exist together? If there are morals among atheists, where do they come from?

In context of this question, I believe that we should be looking at whether becoming a Christian sets further limits on a person's freedoms that they would not otherwise have. Of course, no human is totally free.

The Jesus of the Bible asks that his followers take up their cross and follow him. He asks for complete obedience. I don't see how that can not reduce the level of freedom that the believer has. Can you?

[JoeyKnothead]

Word_Swordsman wrote:

I propose that atheists are equally limited in "freedom" as Christians, while Christians are liberated from excesses of freedom through commandments that don't harm anyone.

Only a theist could use the term 'liberated from excesses of freedom' to argue the suppression of freedom for others. And as I said earlier, those who accept the dictates of their religion make a conscience decision to do so. The problem is when theists would restrict the freedom of others. Alcohol sales on Sunday is a prime example. Of course there are ways around it, and these prohibitions do not 'hurt' anyone. But they hurt freedom, and in many ways that is a far greater harm. What would be far better is a 'liberation from the excesses of religious dogma codified into the legal system.'

When religious folks use their collective votes to restrict the rights and freedoms of others it is tyranny. No amount of explaining why it is 'moral' to restrict rights will wash this tyranny away. Again, with the case of alcohol on Sunday, we see this tyranny in action. Now no one would dare say they vote for this as a matter of religion, no, its 'time management,' 'everybody needs a break,' and various other LIES to support a religious position.

The certainty with which religious folks hold their beliefs, and the certainty they feel in imposing their brand of morals on people is a tyranny. No one wants the right to burn down houses, or to do anything that a sensible, sane law would restrict. We do want the right however to disagree, to not be force fed religious dogma, and to not be subject to laws which are in place specifically as a religious issue.

Regardless of what many will say, this nation was founded on FREEDOM. Not the whims of a religious majority that would use ancient, bronze age notions of what morality should be to legislate otherwise normal human behavior.

"Limitations on Christians," are fine for the Christian, maybe even fine for some who don't believe, but they are not fine for everybody. Christians, by their acceptance of the Bible as their code have made the free, conscience decision to be bound by these codes. This atheist at least has not, nor will I ever. I am bound by the Constitution, which guarantees freedom for all.

[Fisherking]

The Jesus of the Bible asks that his followers take up their cross and follow him. He asks for complete obedience. I don't see how that can not reduce the level of freedom that the believer has. Can you?

"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin... If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed."(John 8

I have found the more I follow Jesus and his teaching the freer I become.

[Word_Swordsman]

Let me turn it back onto atheists. Are you saying an atheist is totally free to do whatever desired? Atheists ignore civil laws? They exercise no set of morals necessary for communities to exist together? If there are morals among atheists, where do they come from?

In context of this question, I believe that we should be looking at whether becoming a Christian sets further limits on a person's freedoms that they would not otherwise have. Of course, no human is totally free.

I can't see a problem with applying the same question to atheists here to point out the question itself implies only Christians have limitations. The question failed to define "freedom" as seen by atheists or Christians. Out of possibly a few thousands civil limitations over both of us, the few prohibitions in the New Testament make any limitations of Christians negligible. I figure if you attended an atheist convention you would have limitations there I don't experience. I doubt they would allow you to support the Christian God in a speech there. By being a Christian I am released from the old Law, subject to better commandments, except the tiny list of Jew concerns in Acts 15. I love the old law, though hated it while a heathen. The Law was put out because of sinners, and all sinners will be judged according to the Law. Not me. I already have the righteousness of Christ imputed by God. You have a lot more restrictions than I have even though you choose to ignore them. You are accountable for the whole of the Law as a sinner not in Christ. The commandments of Christ train me to be like Him, avoiding the pitfalls of atheists and make-believe disciples. They are not grievous to a real Christian, but make plenty of sense because of the imputed righteousness in us.

The Jesus of the Bible asks that his followers take up their cross and follow him. He asks for complete obedience. I don't see how that can not reduce the level of freedom that the believer has. Can you?

The cross is about self-sacrifice, as all Christians are "living sacrifices". The meaning there is simply to follow after the way of Christ at all times. This is like two people riding bikes from point A to point B. There are two roads. One is flat and wide, the other narrow and winding, hilly. Why might one person choose the more difficult one? Maybe to train for a larger event? Would the biker hate his choice, finding it restrictive? Maybe he thinks the other route is too boring, with only wheat to look at for miles and miles, while the other has trees, a nice lake, and other sights to view along the way. I take the route I do because I have found great benefit along this way. None of it is restrictive to me. I freely chose this route in Christ and choose to continue loving it. I know the consequences of taking any other route in life. Talk about restrictive! One of the biggest limitations over there is ending up in hell for eternity with no option to visit elsewhere.

I had two uncles that were football heroes around here who chose to give up their successful business benefits to go to officer training for WWII before they began drafting. They saw the need to give Uncle Sam their skills, one a surveyor, the other an engineer-architect, that title escaping my memory. They took Uncle Sam's cross as their own and carried their crosses well to their deaths in that war, one actually killed while reconstructing war town Europe after the war ended, in an accident. I never once heard anyone in the family say either of them regretted joining the services, but in fact they were each honored with many medals. I would assume each was proud to be a vital part of that war effort. Difficult though it must have been, they chose the jobs they took.

Would you say they lost their freedom or had restrictions imposed on them? I don't. I believe they full well knew there would be some military ways they were not used to, but they accepted those. I believe they transfered one freedom for another. They were free to serve the USA with distinction. That is something like what it means for a Christian to gladly take up his own cross and bear it, the same meaning of their cross as that of Christ's. It means one dies to self and selfishness, and lives for God and His high purposes.