You didn't address my point that it was submission, not free will, that is fundamental to Christian theology. As is always the case when that happens, my position doesn't change as you would expect. I continue to believe and proclaim that the central Christian message is not free will, nor love, nor salvation, but submission
You have shown that Jesus spoke of free will, but not that its use was encouraged or that He valued it. Free will is a big problem for Christianity. It allows people to not listen to proselytizing, to not observe the Sabbath, to not worship the god that its scriptures command be worshiped, to not tithe, and the like. They're called Commandments for a reason. One's contradictory opinions and free expression of them in either word or deed are most unwelcome.
The church very much wants to control the thoughts and actions of its adherents, but must grapple with their freedom to do as they please even as it condemns them for making choices it disapproves of, like getting an abortion. It hates that free will can be expressed in that area and labors to prevent the free expression of that will.
Christ acknowledging that people have free will does not make it a fundamental principle of Christianity. Christianity does not esteem free will. It deals with it as a problem.
I have already done that twice recently. Why shouldn't such things be offered as evidence?
I think my first introduction to politicized Christianity was the Moral Majority of the nineties, whose "unholy alliance with government" I recognized as potentially dangerous and something to be watched closely. I had already been an atheist for more than a decade, but I had no negative feelings about the religion until then.
Yes, atheism permits murder. It pretty much permits anything, just like aleprechaunism, or the lack of belief in leprechauns. Such people get no moral guidance from their unbelief, either. Maybe it was Pol Pot's aleprechaunism and not his atheism that caused him to kill.
Some do. I gave you the words of some prominent ones advocating for Christian rule of the government. Are you familiar with the Reconstructionist / Dominionist movement in Christianity? It's pure Handmaid's Tale stuff.
You are likely unaware of these things because you have no exposure to them and no interest in pursuing such things. You're not only not motivated to discover how Christianity affects and wants to affect the lives of non-Christians, you might be motivated to not see it when it is shown to you as is probably the case with topic.
Now that you've been exposed to these claims, you will either research them if you are interested in learning about theocratic efforts in the States, or you will be uninterested and not look into it. Do you care if there is any validity to the claim that there are efforts to promote theocracy in America?
I suspect that most Christians don't, which is not consistent with your claim that follows :
Really? Then why aren't they all speaking out against inflicting Christian beliefs on non-Christians with all of this recent anti-abortion legislation? I'll tell you why. Very few object to the church piercing the church-state wall, which is an extremely anti-American, anti-Constitution action. If you want to talk authentic founding principles, secular government would be one, and anybody advocating using government to enforce religious preferences is no friend of the Constitution.
It doesn't, which is why theocratic tendencies are un-American and un-Constitutional, and Constitution-loving Christians should object to any incursion of the church into the state.
No, I didn't say that there is something wrong with Christians running for elected office. They just need to be Americans first, and Christians second. They should be there to do the bidding of all Americans, not just the Christian ones
Mike Pence once said, " I am a Christian, a Conservative, and a Republican--in that order!" American didn't even make the list.
I don't hate Christians. You've seen me interacting with dozens of them, two on this thread including you, and there is no hatred there. What you're seeing is me disagreeing with Christians' claims about their religion - about how good and wholesome it is.
So, to you, free will means that when one voluntarily joins the Church, and voluntarily accepts the standards of the Church, they then should be able to do whatever they choose regardless of those standards.
That isn't free will, it is lying, corruption, license, and violating a sacred oath.
Actually, free will is the choosing to follow God within the Church, or choosing not to, or choosing to leave if you will not or cannot meet the standards of the Church.
It is all free will, in every case the individual makes completely free choices.
An individual exercising your kind of free will within the Church is a serious problem for both himself and the Church.
Say he has totally neglected his wife and children, and instead of providing for them, he uses up all his money on gambling and prostitutes.
He does these things by exercising what you would call free will. He totally disregards the standards he freely stated he would abide by. The Church has a responsibility first to his family to assist them in every way possible, then to him in counseling and providing resources for help with his problems.
If he exercises your free will and refuses help, or continues with his behavior, he will be removed as a member of the Church, and will be denied participation in it's serious and important activities and rites.
Oh, you say, this is an extreme example, I was only talking about small things.
It makes no difference. One may bring something to the Church Board or Board of Elders if you feel your behavior is being misinterpreted, if they agree, fine. If not, he may choose to conform, or choose to leave, or choose to be expelled.
No one is forced to join the Church, a person freely joins and understands very clearly what being a member entails. It is an extremely serious matter to accept the standards of the Church, very serious.
It is also a very serious matter to disregard the standards one has freely chosen to accept.
I once belonged to a denomination, had a leadership and teaching role within it. After prolonged study I came to the conclusion that certain doctrinal and required behaviors of the denomination were in fact errors.
I didn't whine over restrictions and doctrines I no longer accepted, I exercised my total free will, and went to another congregation who's beliefs were more in harmony with mine.
You say the Church wants to control people, that is pure codswollop.
The Church has the responsibility to ensure that what is established is followed.,In most Protestant denominations there is significant member input into financial and management issues.Members are free to address the Board as they chose. Board members are elected by the general membership.
Doctrinal issues are the purvue of the board of Elders and the Pastor. In some denominations these issues are dealt with at a higher level. I know one denomination where these issues are dealt with by duly elected representatives from around the world, from every continent..
'
The Church exists for a variety of reasons, one being the purity of doctrines found in the NT, they are not negotiable.
Someone has the free will yo join, or leave.
All Christians to a greater or less extent have had to give up something to do so. We all accepted this freely and joyfully.
The chains you contend the church uses to control people are actually ropes of sand that controls no one. If a member cannot abide what they freely accepted, nothing is restricting them from leaving.
'The Church wants people who happily serve. It does not want people are out of harmony with it. It wants people who will stand with it's doctrines and beliefs, to death if it is required.
If being a member is full of anger and rebellion, then that member should shed those feelings elsewhere.