True freedom

@kevcvs57 said
But these are self imposed civil laws enacted in order for us to be able to coexist in civil society and not do physical harm to ourselves in the real world.
You are advocating ( unless I’m mistaken ) the adherence to a set of arbitrary rules that may or may not be beneficial to us in the real world as a means to obtaining freedom.
Some of these rules may even be harmful ...[text shortened]... ood thing.
However adhering to those rules could not be considered the path to True Freedom Per se.

The difference is that we like these rules and not those? Throwing off rules, laws, constraints of any kind for the simple fact alone you want to be without them is still the same thing I talked about earlier. If we want to pick and choose, that is still saying we will have no rules over us unless we want them. I'm not advocating arbitrary rules; earlier in this discussion, I said the point of any rule is a level playing field where all are treated equally without respect to the person.

So are our self-imposed civil laws/rules just, honest, honorable, treating each person as equal? Do you think those who make our laws do an excellent job of that with our civil laws, which they enacted to be able to coexist? The real world is where we all exist; is there a set for the rich and a set for the poor, a set for the powerful, and a set for the powerless if we don't have a level playing field?

I believe in God, the God of the Bible, and He, unlike the gods of the ancient world, didn't play favorites. In His commandments, He said to treat the foreigner with the same set of rules as His people, the normal way of doing things was not the same as the God of the Bible. The normal thought processes of the day were everyone thought the strongest gods overcame the weaker ones, so the victor's gods were the best.

Unlike the gods of the world who favored the powerful, the God of the Bible became a man and not in a way that would have showered Him with great power and authority, but as a baby born in a manger because there was no room for them anywhere else. With the God of the Bible's righteousness, goodness was more important than religious offerings. He stands with the widow and orphans, not the kings and the rich. Personally, God's goodness is the scariest thing about Him because we are not, and knowing Him is more precious than all the wealth in the world.

@kevcvs57 said
This doesn’t help an agnostic much, there are many Christian’s who do not believe you can view the teachings of Christ ( New Testament ) in isolation from the Old Testament / Torah and as a quite frequent observer of this forum the two seemed manacled to each other.

I view Christianity as Act 2 of a two-act play.

Certainly Messianic prophecies are in the Old Testament - and Jesus Christ, because He is eternal, is as well, though He’s not known by that Name in the Old Testament because He received it after His birth to the Virgin Mary (which was prophesied in Isaiah 7:14.)

But the Old Covenant is certainly distinct from the New Covenant, though I suppose the concept of a blood sacrifice for sins is the same.

@kevcvs57 said
Well those are very qualified freedoms and surely the “ guilt, fear, condemnation, ” that you have freed yourself from only exist because of the rule maker that you claim has freed you from them, or am I missing something here🤔
If I joyously embrace what you call a sin how am I a prisoner of it if you are not a prisoner of the set of rules that Jesus laid down for you to jo ...[text shortened]... on of one master over another. That’s honest and at least you are exercising the freedom to choose.

Why do you call Jesus Christ a rule maker? What rules did Jesus Christ make?

Christians are not under the Law.

“But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”

(Galatians 3:23-26)

@kellyjay said
The difference is that we like these rules and not those? Throwing off rules, laws, constraints of any kind for the simple fact alone you want to be without them is still the same thing I talked about earlier. If we want to pick and choose, that is still saying we will have no rules over us unless we want them. I'm not advocating arbitrary rules; earlier in this discussion, ...[text shortened]... ing about Him because we are not, and knowing Him is more precious than all the wealth in the world.

So someone adhering to simple social cohesion rules and rejecting religious dogma is every bit as free as you given that would be their choice.
Your concept of sin has zero validity outside your hermetically sealed religious beliefs. I have no need to free myself from your subjectively perceived prison of sins. Of course everyone is free to follow religious dogma as I am free to ignore it but I cannot help thinking that theists are burdening themselves with rules that produce no advantage in terms societal cohesion and the observance of individual sovereignty.

@pb1022 said
Why do you call Jesus Christ a rule maker? What rules did Jesus Christ make?

Christians are not under the Law.

“But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

But after that faith is come, we are no lon ...[text shortened]... choolmaster.

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”

(Galatians 3:23-26)

So he didn’t tell you to “turn the other cheek” amongst other things and his father ( to whom he is the only access point ) is not the rule obsessed god of the Old Testament.
I think you might be being a bit obtuse here.

@kevcvs57

Your concept of sin has zero validity outside your hermetically sealed religious beliefs. I have no need to free myself from your subjectively perceived prison of sins. Of course everyone is free to follow religious dogma as I am free to ignore it but I cannot help thinking that theists are burdening themselves with rules that produce no advantage in terms societal cohesion and the observance of individual sovereignty.

Is there no one in your life who if asked to come here and testify. would not say something like:

"Yes, this fella kevcvs57 SINNED against me. Or whatever you'd prefer to call it. He did me DIRT and still hasn't rectified the offense. "

Think about some of the people you have known.
Yea, think about her too.

There is no one in your life who might say "Kevcvs57 sinned. He blew it. He as wrong to do that. Call it something else if you wish. "Sinned" is good enough for me."

Another thing, you pull out the old "dogma" card as a sure slam dunk. Could "dogma" ever be true ? Can one be dogmatic about something that is actually true?

@kevcvs57 said
So someone adhering to simple social cohesion rules and rejecting religious dogma is every bit as free as you given that would be their choice.
Your concept of sin has zero validity outside your hermetically sealed religious beliefs. I have no need to free myself from your subjectively perceived prison of sins. Of course everyone is free to follow religious dogma as I am fr ...[text shortened]... s that produce no advantage in terms societal cohesion and the observance of individual sovereignty.

Rules, laws, and constraints make life liveable with each other without them, the opportunity for harm exists as nothing constrains. Concerning what sins are, we can debate sin is a different topic. Some rules, laws, constraints deal with people interacting with each other and our environment others, dealing with all of our interchanges and the affects upon us.

@sonship said
@kevcvs57

[quote] Your concept of sin has zero validity outside your hermetically sealed religious beliefs. I have no need to free myself from your subjectively perceived prison of sins. Of course everyone is free to follow religious dogma as I am free to ignore it but I cannot help thinking that theists are burdening themselves with rules that produce no advantage in ter ...[text shortened]... slam dunk. Could "dogma" ever be true ? Can one be dogmatic about something that is actually true?

Again with the apples and oranges comparisons. If I transgress against a fellow human being and do not make amends then society has the right to step in for the sake of social cohesion.
But if I eat shellfish on the third Tuesday of lent or have sexual relations outside the confines of a religiously ordained marriage it bears no relationship to real transgressions in the real world, these are only sins because your religious dogma says they are. They are a superfluous prison of your own making, by all means enjoy your time there.

@kellyjay said
Rules, laws, and constraints make life liveable with each other without them, the opportunity for harm exists as nothing constrains. Concerning what sins are, we can debate sin is a different topic. Some rules, laws, constraints deal with people interacting with each other and our environment others, dealing with all of our interchanges and the affects upon us.

See above.
I'm all for societal cohesion based rules, but these have no relationship with the concept of dogma based sins which are arbitrary and often act against societal cohesion.
Of course there will be some overlap between these two sets of rules and it could be argued that there was a time when religious based dogma was the best or only option for social cohesion.

@kevcvs57 said
See above.
I'm all for societal cohesion based rules, but these have no relationship with the concept of dogma based sins which are arbitrary and often act against societal cohesion.
Of course there will be some overlap between these two sets of rules and it could be argued that there was a time when religious based dogma was the best or only option for social cohesion.

Knowing we need rules means that we shouldn't just dismiss out of hand those that get passed down to us through religion simply because. As a matter of fact, the rules that do get passed down to us through religion are an excellent way to judge if that particular religion is full of it or not.

@kellyjay said
Knowing we need rules means that we shouldn't just dismiss out of hand those that get passed down to us through religion simply because. As a matter of fact, the rules that do get passed down to us through religion are an excellent way to judge if that particular religion is full of it or not.

Well I’m all for keeping “Thou shalt not kill” but I’m not gonna stone adulterous people to death.
The point is there may have been a time when religious dogma was better than no rules at all but the vast majority of religious dogma has become anachronistic and societally disruptive in the present day. I’m not just referring to Christianity here but any dogma based religion.

@kevcvs57 said
Well I’m all for keeping “Thou shalt not kill” but I’m not gonna stone adulterous people to death.
The point is there may have been a time when religious dogma was better than no rules at all but the vast majority of religious dogma has become anachronistic and societally disruptive in the present day. I’m not just referring to Christianity here but any dogma based religion.

Rules of any kind are made for reasons, the lack in enforcement or caring the greater odds are for simply removing restraints. In ancient times without marriage do you think any restrictions could be enforced? Adultery removes parental knowledge, whose your daddy. So there would be generations of kids no man would know who are theirs.

So harsh punishments for breaking something (marriage) that is vital for families and community. Not suggesting we go there but at the root of the rule large upsides occurs. The same would be true for fornication think of the STD and unwanted pregnancies out of wedlock births caused. Casting off restraints brings in many consequences.