God and freedom

[Philos]

Folks,

There are those who pay obeisance to the Christian God and yet talk about loving freedom.How can this be?

The Christian God does allow humans to turn away from it’s law, and this is lauded as moral freedom: the ‘free will to reject union with God’. But at what cost?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

The cost is ‘hell’. Now, there is much interpretation and logic chopping about the nature of hell, but one thing we can be sure of, it is a punishment vastly exceeding any earthly sufferings and from which there is no appeal. Can there be dissenters in hell? Is there a way out for those who honestly reject the ‘love’ of a jealous God?

Let us compare this to dissent in other unhappy situations, such as imprisonment in nasty political systems. In these cases we are still free, despite dreadful hardships, to retain our own moral compass. There are many examples, but one is the case of Nelson Mandela on Robben island. Such cases show that it is possible in these earthly sufferings to retain the spark of freedom within ourselves.

No such possibility remains with the Christian God. Reject God in your innermost heart and burn - end of story. It is my suggestion that this is no ‘freedom’ worth the name for such emotional and psychological captives. The Christian believer is locked and chained in moral and spiritual subjection and if they fail to bend the knee to God’s mystery it will destroy them without trace. Cast into the eternal fires like a piece of trash.

Where is the freedom in that?

Alex.

 

[ideologyhunter]

They read Gen. 7 & Exod. 12 & Num. 16 and STILL talk about a god of love. So forget them. There's no bridging the gulf between Christian theology and logic. Never. No how.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I agree Philos, but recently I've come to see it as a form of slavery in a much more subtle way. As an atheist myself, like many others here, we've heard over and over again from theists that ask us where our sense of purpose comes from. You may have been asked this yourself. I got to thinking about this and about freedom. Freedom is essentially forming your own sense of purpose and having the ability to follow through and try to make that a reality. The pursuit of happiness right? We have often viewed communist or dictatorial regimes as restrictive to freedom, happiness and generally immoral because they gave you your purpose. They decided your career, your employment, education and so on.

So here we have Christians claiming the same about such political regimes, yet more than willing to hand over their sense of purpose and responsibility to a divine creator in lieu of the government. He made you, so he gets to design your purpose and very reason for existence. Talk about being a willing slave! Here Mr. Imaginary being, please take my core self, and provide me with reasons for being here, no need to think that all up on my own, thank you.

In my view, ceding your purpose to someone else to decide for you is cowardly, childish and evades responsibility. You may as well not be a person, you're a tool to be used for a desired end at that point. Ugh.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Freedom is good. God is good. Therefore God loves freedom.

Any Biblical references which seem to contradict this are either being taken out of context or were meant as analogies for something else which doesn't dispute the notion that God loves freedom.

 

[doubtingt]

Folks,

There are those who pay obeisance to the Christian God and yet talk about loving freedom.How can this be?

They don't actually love freedom, they fear it. Saying you "love freedom" has become just a vacuous platitude akin to "I love America". It is often synonymous with loving the military and the cultural authorities one bows to and thinks are synonymous with another vague notion of "America".

The way to see if a person actually loves freedom is if they support policies to protect minority views against oppression not just by the state but by any social institution. A person person who thinks that obedience to the ultimate unquestionable authority of God is the definition of what is good and moral is by definition the ultimate authoritarian and thus not a supporter of human liberty and freedom. In fact, I think there is good evidence that it is fear of the uncertainty that is inherent to actual freedom that makes people run under the skirt of theism and want God and his authorities to tell them what to do, who to be, and how to feel. If you freely chose these for yourself, you might be wrong, but if you let an infallible authority determine these for you, then (in your own mind) you can't be wrong.
God, religion, and a general affection for "tradition" tends to stem from fear of freedom, and those who adhere to these things tend to seek to squash the freedom of others.

 

[Philos]

They don't actually love freedom, they fear it. Saying you "love freedom" has become just a vacuous platitude akin to "I love America". It is often synonymous with loving the military and the cultural authorities one bows to and thinks are synonymous with another vague notion of "America".

The way to see if a person actually loves freedom is if they support policies to protect minority views against oppression not just by the state but by any social institution. A person person who thinks that obedience to the ultimate unquestionable authority of God is the definition of what is good and moral is by definition the ultimate authoritarian and thus not a supporter of human liberty and freedom. In fact, I think there is good evidence that it is fear of the uncertainty that is inherent to actual freedom that makes people run under the skirt of theism and want God and his authorities to tell them what to do, who to be, and how to feel. If you freely chose these for yourself, you might be wrong, but if you let an infallible authority determine these for you, then (in your own mind) you can't be wrong.
God, religion, and a general affection for "tradition" tends to stem from fear of freedom, and those who adhere to these things tend to seek to squash the freedom of others.

doubtingt,

Good words.

Alex.

 

[arkirk]

They don't actually love freedom, they fear it. Saying you "love freedom" has become just a vacuous platitude akin to "I love America". It is often synonymous with loving the military and the cultural authorities one bows to and thinks are synonymous with another vague notion of "America".

The way to see if a person actually loves freedom is if they support policies to protect minority views against oppression not just by the state but by any social institution. A person person who thinks that obedience to the ultimate unquestionable authority of God is the definition of what is good and moral is by definition the ultimate authoritarian and thus not a supporter of human liberty and freedom. In fact, I think there is good evidence that it is fear of the uncertainty that is inherent to actual freedom that makes people run under the skirt of theism and want God and his authorities to tell them what to do, who to be, and how to feel. If you freely chose these for yourself, you might be wrong, but if you let an infallible authority determine these for you, then (in your own mind) you can't be wrong.
God, religion, and a general affection for "tradition" tends to stem from fear of freedom, and those who adhere to these things tend to seek to squash the freedom of others.

In the end, I fear there is a train wreck in the making with secular government protecting anybody's views. Some views must be challenged especially if they hurt people or cause widespread suffering. Secular government should not protect religious concepts from question. It should "promote the general welfare" and not deny any person the necessities of life on any conceptual basis...ie. atheism, Judaism, Christianity, etc. etc. When a person attempts to enforce "god's" will on persons who do not believe in god, they withdraw supports such as the ability to make a living. We see this all over our country, but especially in middle America. The problem is that the doctrines of these religions have a long history of enforcing themselves in non-secular nations of the world. It is inevitable that these concepts are carried to new countries as these people immigrate into mixed culture nations. Even in a democratic system their vote represents their religious ideology and attempts to enforce "god's will." I believe secular government has to make demands on sectarian religions that they not attempt to reify and legislate their religion into law and that they do not in their private life oppress those who do not accept their god. That is a big bill to fill.

We can only protect people, not their religions. especially when religions assert something to the effect their God is KING OF HEAVEN AND EARTH and that humans owe their god loyalty and obedience. We have observed however that as time passes, these religions are all in a state of flux anyway and many have something they call the "reformed" wing that asserts more human rights than their fundamental or orthodox wing. The separation of church and state cannot be accomplished without some reforms in religious communities to allow it.

Being an atheist in no way qualifies one to reform a religion. So you can kind of see the train wreck coming in something like the Evangelicals, or the Mormons, or the Jews in Palestine. You are asking the offenders to reform themselves and are prohibited participation in that reform. Many fundies simply cannot accept the diminution of their church's power in the world and don't want watered down milquetoast religion. They are failing to acknowledge the human rights they would need in a majority ruled government that considered them a minority. Train wreck!

Truly secular and honest government would require of religions that they accept a non religious concept like human rights.
Religion greatly affects and dictates to believers how they interact with others both within and without government structures. When you start tinkering with religious dogma, you begin to dilute the power of religious leaders. In our country they are already treated as something special in that they don't pay taxes like others. The problem with religion is that it is authoritarian to its core and because most of it is pure fraud anyway, religious leaders have always taken license to rain down opprobrium on non believers. To them, non believers are either satanic or simply not entirely human. Nonbelievers are the salient exemplars they aim to attack and either destroy (economically or socially) in lieu of them ceding some of their power over their followers.

We know there has to be a way to resolve this at some time if we are ever going to live together in an advanced society with true civil order. I frankly do not have a crystal ball so I do not know where we will be heading in this regard.

 

[Angry Floof]

Philos, don't you know by now how much conflict and contradiction can exist in one human mind? We are adepts at walking a tightrope of reason and irrationality. It's one of our most brilliant talents. We're only as rational as needed for the task at hand. Suffering and curiosity force us to question things from time to time. If believers are doing fine in their ideological circle of wagons, there is nothing to even cause them to notice, much less challenge, the contradictions in their heads.

It's funny just how much incoherence and confusion can be accepted by a mind that wants certainty, while a mind that accepts ambiguity and uncertainty has a chance of finding some level of clarity and resolution.

This applies to all of us to some degree. Religious belief systems are just super extra good at creating psychological conflict.

 

[Underseer]

They read Gen. 7 & Exod. 12 & Num. 16 and STILL talk about a god of love. So forget them. There's no bridging the gulf between Christian theology and logic. Never. No how.

It's not that hard to follow:

1. God is the source of all things that are good.
2. Freedom is good

Therefore, combining 1 and 2, freedom must come from god. QEDuh.

I didn't say it made sense, I just said it's easy to understand.

 

[Philos]

Philos, don't you know by now how much conflict and contradiction can exist in one human mind? We are adepts at walking a tightrope of reason and irrationality. It's one of our most brilliant talents. We're only as rational as needed for the task at hand. Suffering and curiosity force us to question things from time to time. If believers are doing fine in their ideological circle of wagons, there is nothing to even cause them to notice, much less challenge, the contradictions in their heads.

It's funny just how much incoherence and confusion can be accepted by a mind that wants certainty, while a mind that accepts ambiguity and uncertainty has a chance of finding some level of clarity and resolution.

This applies to all of us to some degree. Religious belief systems are just super extra good at creating psychological conflict.

Hi Hy,

I've been working with ambiguity and uncertainty for the longest time. As you rightly say, it is a way towards clarity and resolution. In my own words there is a kind of acceptance available to us. I think of it as 'Whatever turns out to be the road, I will accept. I will accept it because it is the road.'

Something like that.

Alex.

 

[DBT]

God and freedom?

As for the Bible God; ''Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven'' implies that the Will of God takes precedence on Earth (or shall to be in the 'Kingdom to come'') as it is in Heaven, implying that personal freedom has no place under the rule of God, and that the Will of God is Paramount.

 

[Eric H]

Philos;

Let us compare this to dissent in other unhappy situations, such as imprisonment in nasty political systems. In these cases we are still free, despite dreadful hardships, to retain our own moral compass. There are many examples, but one is the case of Nelson Mandela on Robben island. Such cases show that it is possible in these earthly sufferings to retain the spark of freedom within ourselves.

Nelson Mandela was a truly remarkable man, with his freedom came the power to seek vengeance on those who had imprisoned him. But he seemed to show a greater side of forgiveness and mercy, I can't imagine too many people choosing his path.

Having said that, compassion, forgiveness and mercy are at the heart of the Gospel message, the greatest commandments are to love God and to love our neighbour. These commandments are not oppressive.

 

[DBT]

Having said that, compassion, forgiveness and mercy are at the heart of the Gospel message, the greatest commandments are to love God and to love our neighbour. These commandments are not oppressive.

In part. But then there is the other side of the Gospel....the parts that condemn without forgiveness or mercy....

 

[Angry Floof]

Philos;

Let us compare this to dissent in other unhappy situations, such as imprisonment in nasty political systems. In these cases we are still free, despite dreadful hardships, to retain our own moral compass. There are many examples, but one is the case of Nelson Mandela on Robben island. Such cases show that it is possible in these earthly sufferings to retain the spark of freedom within ourselves.

Nelson Mandela was a truly remarkable man, with his freedom came the power to seek vengeance on those who had imprisoned him. But he seemed to show a greater side of forgiveness and mercy, I can't imagine too many people choosing his path.

Having said that, compassion, forgiveness and mercy are at the heart of the Gospel message, the greatest commandments are to love God and to love our neighbour. These commandments are not oppressive.

There is nothing compassionate, forgiving, or merciful in Might is Right. Nothing. You can spout all the nice words you want and it won't change the inhumanity of your religion.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Philos;

Let us compare this to dissent in other unhappy situations, such as imprisonment in nasty political systems. In these cases we are still free, despite dreadful hardships, to retain our own moral compass. There are many examples, but one is the case of Nelson Mandela on Robben island. Such cases show that it is possible in these earthly sufferings to retain the spark of freedom within ourselves.

Nelson Mandela was a truly remarkable man, with his freedom came the power to seek vengeance on those who had imprisoned him. But he seemed to show a greater side of forgiveness and mercy, I can't imagine too many people choosing his path.

Having said that, compassion, forgiveness and mercy are at the heart of the Gospel message, the greatest commandments are to love God and to love our neighbour. These commandments are not oppressive.

But there's all that other shit which is really oppressive. You can't just focus on the good stuff and ignore that and then pretend that you're giving an accurate picture of your religion.

It's like this one guy I used to work with who went to the casino each weekend. Every now and again, he'd come back happy and talk about all the money he'd won. I asked him once on one of those days how much he'd lost in the previous few weeks and his answer was "Oh, I don't think about it that way". This is because he was losing a lot of money overall at the casino. His happiness over the win didn't give an accurate picture of how gambling was working out for him.

It is true that there are some non-oppressive aspects of Christian philosophy. Focusing on those, however, does not tell one about Christianity.

 

[Rhea]

Having said that, compassion, forgiveness and mercy are at the heart of the Gospel message, the greatest commandments are to love God and to love our neighbour. These commandments are not oppressive.

How do you manage to have this idea of the bible and still carry around a book that contains all those other atrocities? How can the gospels (if this is all you think is in them) exist in the same binding as Judges and not spontaneously combust or cause you brain to implode.

How can a person who claims to only believe the rainbows and unicorns part of the bible EVEN STAND to not rip out the pages that command parents to murder their children for disobedience?

I'm serious about this question. How can you stand to not rip out those pages?

 

[Keith&Co.]

the greatest commandments are to love God and to love our neighbour. These commandments are not oppressive.

But if you don't obey them, you burn in Hell for Eternity.
How can that not be oppressive?

 

[Angry Floof]

the greatest commandments are to love God and to love our neighbour. These commandments are not oppressive.

But if you don't obey them, you burn in Hell for Eternity.
How can that not be oppressive?

How can they even be commands in the first place? Because whoever wrote this claptrap didn't have a clue about how human beings work beyond a crude reward/punishment mentality. At best, you can command people to act outwardly in a way that indicates love as dictated by the person's social norms. No one can dictate what a person actually experiences emotionally. Suggesting a loving attitude toward others might be effective for some, but commanding it is just ignorant.

But what else would you expect from a might-is-right belief system masquerading as compassionate?

 

[bilby]

the greatest commandments are to love God and to love our neighbour. These commandments are not oppressive.

But if you don't obey them, you burn in Hell for Eternity.
How can that not be oppressive?

How can they even be commands in the first place? Because whoever wrote this claptrap didn't have a clue about how human beings work beyond a crude reward/punishment mentality. At best, you can command people to act outwardly in a way that indicates love as dictated by the person's social norms. No one can dictate what a person actually experiences emotionally. Suggesting a loving attitude toward others might be effective for some, but commanding it is just ignorant.

But what else would you expect from a might-is-right belief system masquerading as compassionate?

Mafiosi demand 'respect' in exactly the same way; Apparently God is satisfied with scaring people into claiming to love him.

Hey, that God is a great guy! He looks after my home and my business, makes sure nothing 'accidentally' happens to them, know what I'm sayin'? I mean, that's a pretty inflammable looking house right there. Be a shame if it was hit by lightnin' or somthin'. All I gotta do is give him his ten percent, and make sure to go to his place on the weekend, tell him what a great guy he is.

 

[Eric H]

the greatest commandments are to love God and to love our neighbour. These commandments are not oppressive.

But if you don't obey them, you burn in Hell for Eternity.
How can that not be oppressive?

But why wouldn't you love your neighbour as you love yourself?

I believe the world is in the mess it is, because we choose to disobey these commandments.