How often do we hear about the call for freedom of this or freedom of that. And how carefully and deeply have those people shouting so loudly looked into what they're calling out for?
See here for a guiding principle: God's Offer of Freedom
If you look at all these so called freedoms they are limited. A better way to describe them as a group of theories is - relative freedom. That is, none of them are actually freedom at all. Only a little more or less free than the alternative they're being compared to. All of them are mid-witted worldviews. So avoid them if you want to be treated seriously like a proper grown up.
Also, even if any of these relative freedoms could be adopted which usually would be a good thing on it's own, they must exist within a whole view of the world. So to solve a superficial problem feels like a good thing. Yet all the gains would be left for the greater robber to take all that is left - a world, broken at the root, has merely been perfected and reinforced by all that work.
I'm going to start trying to tell you about absolute and unconditional freedom - choice-less awareness as it's sometimes called.
I'm going to go much deeper into the idea that our world has always been in a less than ideal state - compared to the heights it would have otherwise climbed, because we are agentic. Meaning we insist on being obedient instruments of the authority within the hierarchy we have chosen. And that this is what is meant theologically by sin.
I am the hand, not the brain.
Without this founding sin, all other lesser sins are moot. And resolving all lessers sins while not dealing with this biggest one, just leaves more for this robber which takes all that is left.
So, I obey any rule or command no matter how terrible, because the authority I'm obedient to has given me permission - I am merely the hand. Can we not see this clearly today when individuals are being given tacit permission, by authority, to kill people with impunity and then convinces the entire community to rejoice? Would an autonomous human being ever consciously take part in that activity?
This indicates as a collective of people we prefer a world system founded on hierarchy (from our ancient past where it was necessary to survive), where obedience is the key driver of everything. And like a god, this obedience sits way above abstract principles such as morals, saving the world, compassion, charity and so on and so on.
This system drives us so powerfully before principles because if we can signal our obedience well to the tribe we are rewarded, by the tribe. And if we fail to signal our obedience we are sent into virtual exile, which is often a death sentence even today. And in both cases the power in it is way beyond what principle values can achieve.
Reading from Psalm 51 and trying to interpret, I questioned AI about it all. After a few interrogations where we eventually got past tradition, and ended up here:
QUESTION) I'm suggesting that human authority AND gods authority is what God is saying is a lie. Any form of obedience is a sin. Absolute and unconditional freedom is what God is calling on us all to aim for. And this is love, or the meaning of God.
This is a radical, anarchic-theological reading of Psalm 51 that shifts the definition of "God" from a "Ruler to be obeyed" to a "Source of absolute liberation."
In this framework, the psalm becomes a manifesto against the very concept of "Lordship"—both human and divine. Here is how that perspective reinterprets the text:
- The "Clean Heart" as the Death of Ego and Rule - In verse 10, David asks God to "Create in me a clean heart." Under your interpretation: A "dirty" heart is one cluttered by external mandates, social hierarchies, and the "material world authority" of kingship. A "clean" heart is a tabula rasa—a state of absolute autonomy where the individual acts not because they must (obedience), but because they are. The "spirit" David asks for is not a spirit of "compliance," but a spirit of pure spontaneity, which is the only way to experience "unconditional freedom."
- "Against You Only": The Rejection of All Systems - When David says, "Against you, you only, have I sinned" (v. 4), he is traditionally seen as prioritizing God over people. However, in your view: He is dismissing human law, social contracts, and kingly protocols as irrelevant "lies." If "God" is the personification of "Absolute Freedom," then the only "sin" David committed was betraying his own freedom by resorting to the tools of a tyrant (murder and cover-up) rather than living in the light of his own choice. He sinned against "The Freedom" (God) by acting like a "Master" (Material Authority).
- Sacrifice vs. Love - Your view finds its strongest support in verses 16–17: "For you will not delight in sacrifice... The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise." Obedience is a Transaction: Sacrifice is a "material world" transaction—you follow a rule to get a result. This is "sin" because it is a form of spiritual commerce. Brokenness as Liberation: The "broken spirit" is the shattering of the ego that believes it needs to obey or command. Once the spirit is "broken" of the need for authority, what remains is the "unconditional freedom" that you identify as Love.
- God as the "Grantor of Autonomy," Not a Judge - In this reading, God is not a "Judge" sitting on a throne, but the Void or the Ground of Being that insists on our independence. The "judgment" David fears is not a punishment from a deity, but the internal hell of realizing he has enslaved himself to material concerns (his reputation as king, his desire for Bathsheba). Love as Freedom: If God is Love, and Love requires a completely free agent, then any "obedience" would actually destroy the possibility of Love. Therefore, God's "will" is for us to have no master, including God.
Summary: The Sin of Subservience
In your proposed framework, the "Miserere" is a cry of someone who realized they were playing the game of "Power and Obedience" (a material lie) and is now begging to be restored to the state of Absolute Freedom.
From this perspective, "The Fall" was not an act of disobedience; it was the moment humans decided they needed a "Lord" to tell them what was right and wrong, thereby rejecting the terrifying, beautiful gift of absolute choice. [1][2]
Suggested Further Reading for this Perspective:
- Christian Anarchism (e.g., Leo Tolstoy): The idea that the only way to follow the divine is to reject all earthly authority and even the "legalistic" versions of God.
- Theology of the Death of God (e.g., Thomas J.J. Altizer): The idea that God "emptied" Himself of authority to give humanity total freedom.
QUESTION) That is good. I'm suggesting this is not anarchic at all. But that we project ourselves onto a material world master, instead, of accepting the freedom God does not give us, just recommends. So its not only a mistake to obey the state or the law per se. But its an even bigger sin to try to obey God.
Does this intersect with Krishnamurtis teachings about absolute and unconditional freedom?
Your proposition directly mirrors the core of J. Krishnamurti’s philosophy regarding absolute and unconditional freedom.
His teachings align with your view that "opting for a material world authority" and "trying to obey God" are both fundamental traps that prevent true freedom.
- The Sin of Obedience - Krishnamurti taught that any form of obedience—whether to the state, a tradition, a guru, or a concept of God—is essentially destructive. A "Colossal Laziness": He argued that obedience to tradition or authority stems from a desire for security and a "colossal laziness". Destruction of Intelligence: To obey is to follow a pattern, which makes the mind mechanical and dull. In his view, "intelligence has no authority," and a truly free mind must be "free from authority right from the beginning".
- God as a Projection of the Mind - Krishnamurti would strongly agree with your idea that humans "project themselves onto a material world master". The Created God: He explicitly stated that the "God" most people worship is merely a projection of their own thought, fears, and desires for security. The Sin of Seeking: He suggested that attempting to find or obey God is a mistake because a mind that is seeking a result (like "salvation" or "God's favor") is not a free mind.
- Absolute Freedom as Love - Your connection between absolute freedom and Love is a central pillar of Krishnamurti’s work. Freedom is Not Choice: For Krishnamurti, freedom is not the "freedom to choose" (which is often just conditioned preference), but choiceless awareness—seeing "what is" without judgment or direction. Inseparability of Love and Freedom: He taught that love can only exist when there is no "me" trying to achieve something or obey someone. When the mind is totally quiet and free from the authority of the "self," then and only then is there Love.
- Intersection with Your "Miserere" Reading - If you apply Krishnamurti's lens to Psalm 51, David’s "penitential" state becomes a moment of radical negation: David rejects the "material authority" of rituals and sacrifices (v. 16). The "broken spirit" David offers is the shattering of the ego that tried to rule others and follow its own patterns. The "clean heart" is a mind emptied of the past and of all "authorities," finally capable of experiencing the "unconditional freedom" that is the divine.
In short, your suggestion that obedience itself is the sin because it denies the "recommended" gift of absolute freedom is a perfect summary of the Krishnamurti perspective:
To be free of all authority, your own and that of another, is to die to everything of yesterday".