Jesus is about freedom
Posted on: September 10, 2007 - 1:47pm
Offline
Jesus is about freedom
I actually seen someone on another site say that Jesus is all about freedom. My jaw almost dropped. Who ever said that either doesn't know what Jesus supposedly said or has some strange definition of freedom.
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
Richard Dawkins
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Probably some kind of transcendent freedom. "Freedom from sin" and all of that hoopla.
Which, of course, atheists will scoff at from the get-go.
"When did I realize I was God? Well, one day I was praying and I realized I was talking to myself."
Which Jesus is that? The late JC or the one I found in Tijuana?
Miracles don't exist. "Miracle" is a word given to a preposterous event that a theist considers dogmatically advantageous. Def. - Ecclesiastical sensationalism.
The freedom to go to hell or kiss divine ass.
Never taken the trip to hell myself, but it sounds like a nice place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell%2C_Norway
Edit:
"Everyone knows that God drives a Plymouth: "And He drove Adam And Eve from the Garden of Eden in His Fury."
And that Moses liked British cars: "The roar of Moses' Triumph was heard throughout the hills."
On the other hand, Jesus humbly drove a Honda but didn't brag about it, because in his own words: "I did not speak of my own Accord." "
Braveheart is about freedom!
" Freedom is not an abstract philosophical (or legal) concept, but the vital and concrete possibility for every human being to bring to full development all the powers, capacities and talents with which nature has endowed him/her"
Although this quote is taken from a book that deals primarily with political theory it is in some ways similar to that which Christians are refering to when they speak about 'freedom in Christ'. It is actually quite an interesting take on freedom and this is what people are talking about (among other things) when they say that Jesus is all about freedom.
Matt Shizzle - "Who ever said that either doesn't know what Jesus supposedly said or has some strange definition of freedom."
What is your concept of freedom? I have found in my own life that the idea that 'freedom is the ability to do what we please when we please' is extremely problematic. This sort of freedom ceases to exist as soon as an individual is placed in any sort of social environment in which they are (whether they like it or not) forced to deal with the reality that life is primarily a relational experience. We are effected and limited by the presence of other human beings period.
There are freedoms or rights which the State allows us so long as we are not harming or effecting others in a negative or malicious manner. Ultimately we are responsible for our choices still and must submit to the consequences of our actions whether they be natural consequences or State legislated consequences.
In the same way the argument could be made that God, if you beleive there is a God, has allowed humanity the ability to make choices. This is what 'freewill' is. If an intelligent creator is responsible for the creation that intellegence or justice is inevitabley going to be reflected in creation. Therefore when we make good or bad choices we then might suffer the consequences or reap the benefit of our actions.
To tie this back into the question of whether Jesus is about freedom or not...well 'beleif' in Christ (whatever that means) or following the example of Christ allows the beleiver to reach their full potential and thus attain ultimate freedom. Freedom in the biblical sense is the ability for an individual to become that which they were designed to be. To experience life on this planet to it's fullest - to be and become all that they are capable of being. This is perhap why Paul contrasts being "dead in sin/free in Christ". If to 'sin' is to 'miss the mark' then these things we find in the Bible listed as sin are all things that bind us or keep us from living a life centred on loving and intimate relationships with either God, people or creation as a whole. To be free in Christ is to be freed from the bondage of sin and it's eternal consequences. Freedom is the ability to be an unpolluted (or as close as it comes) version of yourself.
This idea of freedom is not soley a Christian one. If you ask me it is among the most solid philosophies on the concept that I've come across.
Matt, please be careful not to be so hasty in your judgments. I'm not knocking you bro - I just know how it goes. One person disagrees with a certain belief system or philosophy and so they knock every thought that comes out of that camp. This is one of the problems with 'religious' communities (as I'm sure you've noticed). Just don't fall into that same pattern. Anyways I guess to close I would say that this is not irrational - from my understanding Jesus was definately about freedom on so many levels.
Uh....Wasn't Jesus in favor of all those biblical laws ? So it's freedom for everybody, except all those people we're supposed to stone to death ?
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be cynical, but I really wish you christians would finally agree on which bits of the bible we're supposed to take seriously and which bits we're allowed to ignore.
Well freedom is a extremely vague political ,philosophical and if you like religious concept. In my opinion for direct practical purposes its so vague it can mean so much it actually means nothing at all .
One mans freedom is anothers prison, any law or consitution that has the word 'freedom' in is a poor one, great concept for wooly debates bad for deciding what is or isnt acceptable in society
"Uh....Wasn't Jesus in favor of all those biblical laws ? So it's freedom for everybody, except all those people we're supposed to stone to death ?"
First, actually Jesus had a very interesting take on the Laws that you are refering to. He was confronted in one passage by a group of people who wanted to stone a woman for the act of adultery. While according to the Law the people would have been justified Jesus gives them a bit of a 'mind fuck' if you will. Long story short, no one stoned the woman.
Also the concept of freedom that you seem to be refering to is very much a political one - I mean that within this community the Law was looked upon as...well law. If someone broke the law they were punished for that. Every society on earth has some form of punishment criminals. Again this is not necesarily the sort of freedom that I am talking about specifically...although Jesus does teach a freedom from the law in a sense. I could go off on a tangent and get into a lot of stuff here...what may be helpful is if you check out wikipedia for the term 'Christian pacifism'.
"I'm sorry, I don't mean to be cynical, but I really wish you christians would finally agree on which bits of the bible we're supposed to take seriously and which bits we're allowed to ignore."
Well I wish all you Athiests would finally agree on what it means to be an athiest. See how that sounds when I reverse it. Of course different groups disagree on what certain things mean or how to practically apply them to life. WE are all freethinking individuals and the result is that some of us will interpret things differently than others. I do beleive that there are some opinions that are more well informed than others though. With the case that you're talking about there is pretty much a consistent view of the law among scholars. This understanding comes directly from the teachings of Jesus (he actually taught on these things along with other NT authors).
Jesus said and did some pretty crazy things:
See_here.
Anyway, pretty much every law that is anti-freedom in this country that is attempted to be passed (anti-abortion, anti-birth control, discriminatory, censorship, etc. ) is mainly sponsored by Christians.
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
Richard Dawkins
Take the magic out of this concept and it's a pretty good, though not complete, definition. As you said, the idea of freedom is not solely a christian one. In fact, it is a concept far older than christianity as is free will. They are not Dog given, they are concepts developed as we as a species became more intelligent and began to seek out ways to survive, not just as individuals but as groups where individuals began to cooperate toward that end.
You must have missed the many threads where atheism was defined. It is not a philosphy, nor is it a lifestyle or belief. It is in fact the exct opposite of belief, it is non-belief in Dog or any god for that matter. We simply do not accept that there is any sky daddy watching over us or affecting our lives in any way, shape or form. Simple, it's not even a concept, just the lack of belief. Don't make things too complicated, your head might explode.
"Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." Thomas Jefferson
www.myspace.com/kenhill5150
"Jesus said and did some pretty crazy things:"
haha thanks Matt. I've actually read and done a little bit of study on what Jesus said...hence why I call myself a Christian or follower of Christ:P If youre interested in finding out what the context of these passages you should definately do a study...I have found people like NT Wright offer great insights. Even if you just read the rest of the story from which these passages where taken you might get a better idea of the context. It would probably be helpful for you as well if you are engaging Christians about Jesus if you better understood Christian theology. My original post that got me linked up with the RRS had to do exactly with this issue. I emailed them about how SOME NOT ALL athiests just throw out isolated passages without understanding what they mean to Christians and this can weaken their arguments. I don't knock the athiest belief to be honest, I just think that if a conversation is going to take where the words of Jesus are being used to in some way challenge the Christian beleif...well then it would be important that the Christian beleif is first understood.
"Anyway, pretty much every law that is anti-freedom in this country that is attempted to be passed (anti-abortion, anti-birth control, discriminatory, censorship, etc. ) is mainly sponsored by Christians."
I know...and as a Christian I would like to apologize to every non-Christian who has had to adhere to laws that have been based soley on 'Christian morality'. Most of these laws are not a reflection of what Jesus taught - and even if they were from reading the accounts of his life it seems quite clear that Jesus was not interested in people following his teachings because they were forced to by the government. This confusion is most likely the product of Christendom NOT Christ.
Why even assume Jesus philosophy is Xain? Fuck, I read that NT mess just the opposite. The "laws" (god) will always be, the physics of what was, this "big bang" day .... All that is, is in motion and change, if "measured" time is your guide. What did a Jesus write? NOTHING ! Umm, what's that tell us, YOU !
Well, Christians are fools, inventors and idol worshipers. Atheist Jesus, Xain Jesus, take your pick, it's all there, the choice is yours. My best Jesus was atheist "and the bible told me so" , not that I needed that fucking bible cannon of edited babel contradiction. All idol worship is blasphemy of any resemblance of logic that I can entertain in my little pea brain. So I shout , WTF isn't gawed, and how can anyone worship and why? Sheezzzz, religion sucks ..... i am god as you. DA DA DA , blah, blah, blah
Condemned to be what we are, 100% god .... Damn, wish there was a loving sky daddy, ahh this life sucks, no wings, why hunger, why the tease? .... god damn it. God doesn't give a fuck, but WE DO ! 
Well that was a sweet little response...last time I check life was still complicated and my head has yet to show any signs of combustion...ffffewww
"You must have missed the many threads where atheism was defined. It is not a philosphy, nor is it a lifestyle or belief. It is in fact the exct opposite of belief, it is non-belief in Dog or any god for that matter. We simply do not accept that there is any sky daddy watching over us or affecting our lives in any way, shape or form."
Hey BullDog,
I didn't miss the posts I just am still a little confused as to the logic behind this. Maybe you cold clear it up for me though. Is that like when I say to someone "what are you thinking?" and they respond "nothing". Isn't thinking about nothing still thinking? By not beleiving in God aren't you either just beleiving there is no God or beleiving that you don't know if God exists? Isn't it still a belief? If beleiving in God then shapes ones lifestyle then wouldn't not believing in God also shape your lifestyle at the very least because you don't adhere to the same moral code or practice certain religious rituals ect? I'm not saying it would look the same for every athiest just as following Christ doesn't look the same for every Christian. Athiesm though it may not be a complete philosophy is still a part of what shapes your understanding of the world and therefore it informs your life philosophy does it not? In the same way the teaching of Christ inform the Christian understanding of the universe and the variety of philosophies that make that up.
PS - My sky daddy would beat up your sky daddy in a fight:P Atheism spelled backwards is Ms. Ietha! Sorry I'm just having fun.
Peace and Love
That's cool. To each his own. I'm not sure what hermanuetic or exegetical process you used to come to these conclusions about the NT or the philosophy of Jesus presented therein but having spoke with you briefly in other forums you seem like a decent intelligent human being and I respect your opinion
Definately some Christians (and people in general) are fools, inventors and idols worshippers. I'm not one to judge who at this point (only time will tell) but sure some of us are foolish.
And yes, I give a fuck and I'm encouraged by the fact that you obviously do as well.
Peace and Love
Cool Matt Churhman. I dig ya man. To be a Jesus fan does not mean one is xain. The bible is so vague that interpretation of them words is no reason for claiming a prejudice label for oneself. We are simply one earth, one human race.
Jesus is highly adored in all the world. To say Jesus is an idiot, who wrote nothing, is more to say, the biographers of idol worship invention, as is traditional religion are idiots, and YEAH. I and you and all are the Christ ! We are what we are , as, "I am what I am" .... Need I even mention all is god !
Therefore I am simply atheist, as is the essence of many other labels, such as pantheists, buddhists, taoists etc. Even the Muslims have one, which I can't remember. Dig ?
I gave up Christianity for Lent a couple years ago, and "forgot" to take it up again, but I find the bit that is Matthew 7:12 to be about the only thing worthwhile in the whole book. Hillel the Elder was of much the same opinion about the scriptures as they existed in his day, too.
Jesus is slavery.
Well, let's see if I can clear it up for you. As to your example, I sometimes "veg" when I'm tired or just want to relax. When I do I just stare, my eyes usually lose focus and I don't have a thought running through my consious mind. Now I'm reasonably certain my subconscious mind is racing around doing whatever it does, mainly keeping me breathing. I am not, however, "thinking" in the sense that I am reviewing my day, or wondering how an idiot like the Bush got elected, etc. There are no conscious thoughts in there, it's just blank. I don't "see" images in my mind and I don't "speak" or "hear" words, music, and sometimes even real noise from outside my mind. So when someone tells you "nothing" they may very well be not thinking of anything in a conscious way.
I don't "believe" there is no Dog, I simply do not accept the existence of Dog, just like I don't accept the existence of pink unicorns, elves, faeries, Thor, Buddha, bigfoot or any other human constructs. Not accepting something is not the same as believing something. If I were an agnostic then I would in fact "believe" that Dog doesn't exist but admit that I don't know for sure and could be wrong.
While my beliefs do in fact shape my lifestyle, my beliefs are not based on my not accepting the existence of your sky daddy. My lifestyle is based on morals and ethics I have developed throughout my lifetime and has nothing to do with anything supernatural. Morals do not come from any supernatural beings, they have developed with the human race as a means of survival. Just as our secular laws do not come from christianity or any other religion. Hammurabi was the first to codify laws and this was quite some time before christianity was hatched in the booby trap of the Middle East. There were some good laws and some barbaric (by today's standards) ones. When the Constitution and the laws that followed were written, they were based on age-old laws in existence well before jeebus freaks were around to screw things up.
Yes, our morals, ethics and perceptions of the world around us do shape the way we behave, our lifestyle if you will. However, our morals, ethics and perceptions of the world are not based on the writings and fantasies of a bunch of cave dwellers in the Middle East some 1900 years ago. Since we all percieve the world a little differently from each other, mostly based on our experiences and understanding of things, our lifestyles are different in many ways. Except for theists, that has nothing to do with dieties living in the sky, or in the ground or rocks, trees or anywhere else.
To reiterate, Atheism (a poor term at best) is not a philosophy, it is not even the beginning of a philosphy. It is merely the lack of any acceptance of the supernatural. Language is not a precise animal and the English language is no exception. Realism, rationalism, existentialism and several other isms are philosophies. Philosophy is a systematic approach relying on reasoned argument to address life, truth, justice and a whole host of other tangible and intangible realities of our world.
While atheists use reasoned argument to debunk the apologetics of religion, atheism is not a philosophy. There is just one tenet, if it can be called that, to atheism and that is simply non-acceptance of Dog, Thor, etc. BTW, If I had a sky daddy your sky daddy couldn't beat him up because my sky daddy wouldn't accept the reality of your sky daddy.
"Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." Thomas Jefferson
www.myspace.com/kenhill5150
Naw, Jesus just thought slavery was cool is all. Otherwise..... why not do away with it and not leave it up to that putz Paul. Oh wait he never said anything about doing away with that horrible institution either. Ok, so jesus is just for slavery.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
The Pauline xian jesus is indeed a delusional "slavery" Master to be defeated. I vote for the atheist jesus, "and the bible tells me so" ....
me CHRIST, just as YOU !
Hey Bullgod,
Thanks for responding. I was just reading your reply and there where a couple of areas where I'm still not totally clear.
"Well, let's see if I can clear it up for you. As to your example, I sometimes "veg" when I'm tired or just want to relax. When I do I just stare, my eyes usually lose focus and I don't have a thought running through my consious mind."
I guess this is kind of a personal thing so I can't really go against what you are saying from personal experience. I've not expereinced this state of "veg". I do at times veg/relax and think about very little consciously but my mind is constantly going and as random as it is I am still always thinking about something. Usually if I am watching TV there are a variety of different thoughts running through my mind even if they are just processing and interpretting what I am seeing on the television...then I usually go off on some tangent that is in some way, regardless of how vaguely, related to whatI have been watching.
"I don't "believe" there is no Dog, I simply do not accept the existence of Dog"
This is what I mean. This seems to be a word game and that's where my confusion comes from.
definitions - accept - say yes; approve; BELIEVE
So really all I have to do is use my thesaurus and your sentence would read "I don't believe there is no Dog, I simply do not beleive the existence of Dog." One of the words in the dictionary that is used to define the word accept is in fact the word 'belief'. In the context of what you are saying I beleive they are interchangable.
I said - "If beleiving in God then shapes ones lifestyle then wouldn't not believing in God also shape your lifestyle at the very least because you don't adhere to the same moral code or practice certain religious rituals ect? I'm not saying it would look the same for every athiest just as following Christ doesn't look the same for every Christian. Athiesm though it may not be a complete philosophy is still a part of what shapes your understanding of the world and therefore it informs your life philosophy does it not? In the same way the teaching of Christ inform the Christian understanding of the universe and the variety of philosophies that make that up."
You said - "Yes, our morals, ethics and perceptions of the world around us do shape the way we behave, our lifestyle if you will. However, our morals, ethics and perceptions of the world are not based on the writings and fantasies of a bunch of cave dwellers in the Middle East some 1900 years ago. Since we all percieve the world a little differently from each other, mostly based on our experiences and understanding of things, our lifestyles are different in many ways. Except for theists, that has nothing to do with dieties living in the sky, or in the ground or rocks, trees or anywhere else."
No, as an athiest they are not based on the "writing of cave dwellers..." they are based at least in part by the belief that the words of these individuals are not in some way the inspired word of God. This may not be the case if you were never exposed to the beliefs of these' cavedwellers' as you call them but you have and therefore you are forced to wither beleive what they are saying or not beleive as you have chosen to do.
"To reiterate, Atheism (a poor term at best) is not a philosophy, it is not even the beginning of a philosphy."
definitions - philosophy - an explaination or theory of the universe.
The beleif that there is no God is one theory of the universe. It is a universe without a God. Jus tlike my belief in God effects the way I interpret the universe, Your not beleiving in God effects the way you understand the universe???
"Philosophy is a systematic approach relying on reasoned argument to address life, truth, justice and a whole host of other tangible and intangible realities of our world."
Wouldn't Atheism be part of a "reasoned approach to address "a whole host of tangible and intangible realities of our world"?
PS- Just because your sky daddy didn't accept the reality of my sky daddy it doesn't mean that my sky daddy's reality isn't reality
Therefore your sky daddy would be forced to accept (or not accept) the reality of my sky daddy's foot in his ass:P Either way my sky daddy's foot would still be all up in his ass:O
definitions - Atheism - the beleif that there is no God.
First of all, if you want a definition go to the dictionary, not the thesaurus. One has the definition of words the other has words with the same or similar meaning depending on the context in which they are used. Accept, in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, has the following definitions:
transitive verb
1 a: to receive willingly <accept a gift> b: to be able or designed to take or hold (something applied or added) <a surface that will not accept ink>
2: to give admittance or approval to <accept her as one of the group>
3 a: to endure without protest or reaction <accept poor living conditions> b: to regard as proper, normal, or inevitable <the idea is widely accepted> c: to recognize as true : believe <refused to accept the explanation>
4 a: to make a favorable response to <accept an offer> b: to agree to undertake (a responsibility) <accept a job>
5: to assume an obligation to pay; also : to take in payment <we don't accept personal checks>
6: to receive (a legislative report) officially
intransitive verb: to receive favorably something offered —usually used with of<a heart more disposed to accept of his — Jane Austen>
As I said before, the English language, or any language for that matter, is imprecise. I use the term "accept" as a transitive verb with the definition (3b) broadly defined.
Your mistake is assuming "believe" has a strictly religious or faith based definition.
Believe:
intransitive verb:
1 a: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe in exercise>
2 a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>
3: to hold an opinion : think <I believe so>
transitive verb
1 a: to consider to be true or honest <believe the reports> <you wouldn't believe how long it took> b: to accept the word or evidence of <I believe you> <couldn't believe my ears>
2 a: to hold as an opinion : suppose <I believe it will rain soon >
When I use the term "accept" in the context I have, I certainly do not infer the use of the word "believe" as anything other than it's transitive form. There is no belief in a god or diety of any kind implied. Yes, this has become a word game. You understood when you first read it what was meant, so you can stop the word games now.
As to morals; suffice to say that morals were around long before jeebus and christianity. All your cave dwellers did was copy from a far older and, likely wiser, culture and then claim it was thier idea. Had you finished reading the paragraph from which you took my sentence out of context, you would have seen that. Your god is not real, therefore there is no connection between morals and the idea of a sky daddy.
"An explanation or theory of the universe"? How is that the definition of "philosphy"?
1 a (1): all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2): the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy> (3): the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1)archaic : physical science (2): ethics c: a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2 a: pursuit of wisdom b: a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c: an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs