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.

[Zzyzx]

.

An American Indian leader taught it [referring to the Golden Rule] to his students before long range sea travel became possible.
It is interesting how word travels.

What makes you think that “word travels� explains the occurrence of “The Ethics of Reciprocity� (as the Golden Rule is known in generic terminology)?

People world-wide probably put their pants on one leg at a time. Does that mean that they learned from each other?

Many ethical codes discourage stealing, killing and lying. Does that mean that “word travels� OR is it possible that all of the above can develop in society without influence from “traveling word�?

Note: for those interested, there is an excellent discussion of “The Golden Rule� in various cultures, philosophies and religions at http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

[earl]

Zzyzx wrote,
People world- wide probably put their pants on one leg at a time.Does that mean they learned from one another?


"Word travels" .Could it be introduced?or by free thinking?or by spiritual revelation or insight?Yes to all.

Is our history correct saying the American Indian traveled to present day America from another place?
If they freely thought of the saying,where did the saying come from?Do words have beginnings or not?
If they had a spiritual insight or personal revelation word of mouth was at times long ago the standard of record keeping.


As far as you stating that I have not shown man is more free than his past shows to be is a matter of observation from one poster to another in a given time setting.My previous post shows a relative calm today through tolerance compared to the past.
History is not over .Tomorrow may make history.

Before the golden rule was renamed by modern phraseologists who like doing things like that it was the golden rule.

[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 the command of killing a witch, false prophet; or that beating a slave to an inch of their life is ok; is all because he wants "us" to live full, satisfied lives?

That doesn't sound like loving, it sounds cruel and demanding.

[Zzyzx]

.

People world- wide probably put their pants on one leg at a time. Does that mean they learned from one another?

"Word travels" .Could it be introduced?or by free thinking?or by spiritual revelation or insight?Yes to all.

I agree with all except “spiritual revelation� because I consider ANY “revelation� to be the product of a person’s mind and thus a form of insight (or possibly delusion). The list is not exhaustive.

Is our history correct saying the American Indian traveled to present day America from another place?

That is widely regarded as true. I do not disagree.

The same exact statement can be made regarding human inhabitants of nearly any place on Earth.

If they freely thought of the saying,where did the saying come from?

If they “freely thought of the saying� it obviously came from their mind. Doesn’t “freely thought� imply use of one’s own mental processes?

Do words have beginnings or not?
Most words probably could be traced back to grunts if we had detailed information available. Is that what you mean?

What words were used by Native Americans to express the idea of the GR? To help in that regard:

Native American Spirituality: http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm
"Respect for all life is the foundation." The Great Law of Peace.
"All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really One." Black Elk
"Do not wrong or hate your neighbor. For it is not he who you wrong, but yourself." Pima proverb.

Those words are very different from those of other statements of the “GR� AND those words were, in all probability, translated from Native American languages.

How do you propose they result from “spreading of word� from elsewhere?

If they had a spiritual insight or personal revelation word of mouth was at times long ago the standard of record keeping.

Yes, and therefore . . . . . . . ?

As far as you stating that I have not shown man is more free than his past shows to be is a matter of observation from one poster to another in a given time setting.

Correction: Read what I actually said – “You have not shown that the GR frees but, instead, have shown that it has NOT done so.�

Would you care to attempt to show how Native Americans are now more “free� than they were prior to the European invasion?

Kindly demonstrate how the GR produced their present “freedom� that you propose.

My previous post shows a relative calm today through tolerance compared to the past.

“Relative calm today�???? Are you aware of the wars of occupation in the Middle East, the conflict between Israel and its neighbors, the genocide in African nations? Are you aware that many nations have atomic weapons poised to strike others? Are you aware of the history of wars during the Twentieth Century?

Do you maintain that this represents “calm� in comparison history in general? By what standard?

History is not over .
Tomorrow may make history.

Tomorrow WILL make history (one way or another) – but we cannot predict what tomorrow will contribute to “history�.

Before the golden rule was renamed by modern phraseologists who like doing things like that it was the golden rule.

Correction: In some English speaking societies, particularly those of Judeo / Christian heritage, the saying may have been known by that name. Elsewhere in the world and in other cultures it was known by different names.

Do you propose that your preferred name for a common idea is superior to others?

Do you attempt to claim ownership of the GR for your culture or religion rather than recognizing it as a common idea that is expressed by many cultures, religions and philosophies worldwide?

[earl]

zzyzx wrote,
Kindly demonstrate how the golden rule produced their present freedom that you propose.
I did not propose the golden rule produced American Indian present day freedom.
I spoke of a relative calm not to be stretched any futher.Did I say a complete peace ?No.
As with the colonists free from their accross the water ancestors,As with the black man -now free from slavery,woman free from man's bondage,worship of a personal God is much less persecuted ,the so will the Indian someday .I am sure you know of other examples where man and woman are advancing in civility.

[Zzyzx]

.

zzyzx wrote,
Kindly demonstrate how the golden rule produced their present freedom that you propose.
I did not propose the golden rule produced American Indian present day freedom.
I spoke of a relative calm not to be stretched any futher.Did I say a complete peace ?No.
As with the colonists free from their accross the water ancestors,As with the black man -now free from slavery,woman free from man's bondage,worship of a personal God is much less persecuted ,the so will the Indian someday .I am sure you know of other examples where man and woman are advancing in civility.

Can you demonstrate that "the golden rule" brought about (caused or resulted in) “a relative calm� or any of the changes you mention?

I do not dispute that there may be some reflection of the "rule", but I question the assumption the "rule" caused or brought about any changes or any peace. Can you document that it did?

[earl]

Zzyzx wrote,
Can you demonstrate the golden rule brought about (caused or resulted in)a relative calm or any of the changes you mention.

The declaration of independence identifies God.Texts bearing God's relationship with man recognizes the golden rule as an acceptable action in man's relationship towards his fellows.Rights ,freedom and fairness is often quoted from both.

Those who study the Koran discover the golden rule is not present.Those who signed the declaration have not known as being a koran reader.

[Zzyzx]

.

Zzyzx wrote,
Can you demonstrate the golden rule brought about (caused or resulted in)a relative calm or any of the changes you mention.

The declaration of independence identifies God.Texts bearing God's relationship with man recognizes the golden rule as an acceptable action in man's relationship towards his fellows.Rights ,freedom and fairness is often quoted from both.

Those who study the Koran discover the golden rule is not present.Those who signed the declaration have not known as being a koran reader.

Thank you for demonstrating very clearly that you cannot demonstrate that the GR brought about relative calm.

Note: The Declaration of Independence mentions “their Creator� and “Nature’s God� but not "God" per se. The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not mention gods at all. So what was your point again?

[earl]

zzyzx wrote,
The declaration of independence mentions "their Creator" and "Nature's God" but not God per se.
You say "mentions" .How does it mention?And "you have Creator" in caps.Creator is common knowledge to be God one and the same interchangable as the signers of the declaration knew through their european religious education.Nature's God equally is understood as the Creator of life.
I use Creator in caps and God interchangable very,very frequently.Others do the same common practice.
Do you always say thank you for your very own misinterpretation of frequently used interchangable words?
You, in light of this may not recognize that .
Fact is that some religious text state God is the Creator and the same text state that the entity named Jesus is commonly called the Creator.These Europeans who signed are also aware of such in that same religious text .
So therefore I have made the connection.
Later

[McCulloch]

It was well known that many of the founding fathers were deists. Others were Christians. Still others are in dispute. Obviously, in the face of such disagreement, their Creator would mean simply whatever it was that lead to their existence. I might refer to Mother Nature, without implying any kind of literal pagan beliefs. It is a metaphor.

I would not infer too much from capital letters in writings of that period.