Be free

[Cyperium]

Freedom comes when doing what's right.

This has been shown to me in life, time after time, again and again.

When I do bad things I'm tied up by guilt and the feeling of making up for it.

When I do good things I feel that I can do anything.

I'm given freedom if I do good things, naturally, because I feel that it won't harm me if I continue to do what I do.

But if I don't do good things then, naturally, freedom is taken away from me, cause it would harm me if I still had the same freedom to do what I do.

I still have the freedom though (in essence), but I'm blinded from it when I do bad things, so that I won't continue to harm myself.

Fear is limiting freedom, obviously, because you don't feel free to do what you want to do if you fear it.

We can fear things for various reasons (and I'm no psychologist), one being that we fear a situation because something bad has happened to us in that situation before, we could avoid that fear if we do what's right in that situation. Cause then the fear would loose meaning since we did what was the best thing to do (what's right) and it still was unavoidable. Shouldn't fear the unavoidable should we?

If we come better prepared to the situation next time then maybe we can better see what is right to do, but often that comes by itself.

But freedom also comes with realising what is unavoidable and what is not (you can walk wherever you want, but if you see a wall (the unavoidable) and walk right into it, then who's to blame?).


I've pretty much written this top-to-bottom without thinking very much, sometimes the point goes through better when I do that - that means though, that some parts might still be unclear, and if you want to ask me then feel free to do that.

Also take notice that this is written from one certain perspective (that of how the good and bad things we do affects our freedom) and thus may not be fully valid in other perspectives.

 

[Leo Volont]

You are simply saying that when you stay within the boundaries of your moral confinement, you don't feel their restrictions.

Not testing your freedom is not the same as being free.

But that is not a bad thing. What you are trying to do is reconcile the Modern Athem of Freedom to what you believe is moral and responsible thinking. It can't be done. Why? Well, because Freedom is Evil. Freedom is what Lucifer wanted. But what is Freedom but Freedom from God?

Look at the Teachings of Christ. He came to place a yoke upon us -- a light yoke, but a yoke none the less. He conferred upon us obligations. Christ never told us we could run wild... that we were to cultivate a pleasure in Freedom.

 

[Cris]

Cyperium,

Freedom comes when doing what's right.

No not really. Freedom is being able to take personal actions without being prevented by external factors. Such actions could be good or bad depending on the moral code being used.

I'm given freedom if I do good things, naturally, because I feel that it won't harm me if I continue to do what I do.

This has little to do with freedom but simply your personal survival instinct.

Fear is limiting freedom, obviously, because you don't feel free to do what you want to do if you fear it.

Fear is a healthy mechanism for survival. You are free to step in front of a speeding car but your fear of being injured or killed helps prevent you from taking such actions.

If we come better prepared to the situation next time then maybe we can better see what is right to do, but often that comes by itself.

I think you simply do not have a clear perception of a moral code that makes sense to you, but you are close to defining one. A good rational code is based on personal survival – you are already demonstrating in your text your understanding of community actions in this regard. Good is anything that enhances and supports life and survival, and Bad is anything that detracts or harms life or survival.

Also take notice that this is written from one certain perspective (that of how the good and bad things we do affects our freedom) and thus may not be fully valid in other perspectives.

If you replace “freedom” here with “survival” then that will make more sense.

 

[Cris]

Leo,

You are simply saying that when you stay within the boundaries of your moral confinement, you don't feel their restrictions.

No I don’t think so. He doesn’t yet know what that code is – he is still struggling and trying to define it.

What you are trying to do is reconcile the Modern Athem of Freedom to what you believe is moral and responsible thinking. It can't be done.

It can’t be done because they are two different concepts that are being mixed up leading to a confusing and nonsensical paradigm.

Why? Well, because Freedom is Evil. Freedom is what Lucifer wanted. But what is Freedom but Freedom from God?

Oh nonsense. Superstitious and meaningless claptrap. Freedom is essential to moral growth and we need to test those freedoms to determine and discover what works and what doesn’t. That is how we have evolved over the millenia. Ultimately it is all about survival.

Look at the Teachings of Christ. He came to place a yoke upon us -- a light yoke, but a yoke none the less. He conferred upon us obligations. Christ never told us we could run wild... that we were to cultivate a pleasure in Freedom.

And there is nothing in those aleged teachings that we have not been able to determine and discover for ourselves independent of religious gobledigook. A rational moral code that limits some freedom results in both survival and happiness for the individual and the community, and the community survival further strengthens the survival of its individual members. Appeals to supernatural superstitions simply breeds ignorance and decreases survival – i.e. Christianity is morally bad.

 

[§outh§tar]

Could you please define 'good' and 'bad', that we may heed your good counsel?

 

[Cyperium]

You are simply saying that when you stay within the boundaries of your moral confinement, you don't feel their restrictions.

Not testing your freedom is not the same as being free.

I don't have to walk into the wall, if I see it is there, just to know I can't walk into the wall.

Sure what I can do may not be the same as what others can do. I may handle some situations better or worse than others. But "testing" isn't really "testing", it's experiance. From experiance we can understand the situations that we are good at, and avoid the situations we are bad at, until we understand the situations we are bad at (come better prepared to it) otherwise we will start to fear those situations.

But that is not a bad thing. What you are trying to do is reconcile the Modern Athem of Freedom to what you believe is moral and responsible thinking. It can't be done. Why? Well, because Freedom is Evil. Freedom is what Lucifer wanted. But what is Freedom but Freedom from God?

True freedom, isn't evil.

We shouldn't use that freedom to do evil though. We get alot of freedom in Christ, the Bible warns us not to use that freedom in a bad way.

Look at the Teachings of Christ. He came to place a yoke upon us -- a light yoke, but a yoke none the less. He conferred upon us obligations. Christ never told us we could run wild... that we were to cultivate a pleasure in Freedom.

I have to be honest and tell you that I don't know what a "yoke" is.

He never told us that we should run wild. But is running wild freedom?

In the eternal life that is given to us, then we would be truly free, cause sin wouldn't exist to us. We could do whatever we wanted without fear of danger (since the mere concept of sin is vanished from our sight and not remembered anymore). We can get a "taste" of that freedom here in this life, just by following what's right, cause then sin wouldn't have any arguments against us and no place to grow within us.

 

[Cyperium]

Could you please define 'good' and 'bad', that we may heed your good counsel?

Hehe, I think I understood your point there

My definition of good*, is something that is good for our well-being*, good morally*, good for others well-being*, and leads to good things*.

* In the long run and at the moment.

If you want my definition of bad, then just replace the "good" with "bad".

Or a simpler explanation. Good is what's good for good. Bad is what's bad for good.

 

[Leo Volont]

Leo,



Freedom is essential to moral growth and we need to test those freedoms to determine and discover what works and what doesn’t.

In what direction does your 'moral growth' inevitably proceed?

The fixed and respected Moral Boundaries held by all High Civilizations in their Golden Ages seemed to have reached a Zenith and admitted that any change would be downward.

Has Morality improved since we have asserted the Doctrine that Freedom trumps everything else? Well, no. As a matter of fact the much aclaimed Morality of the Middle Class has declined to nothing and what the World is now looking at is a Vast Lower Class.

 

[§outh§tar]

Hehe, I think I understood your point there

My definition of good*, is something that is good for our well-being*, good morally*, good for others well-being*, and leads to good things*.

* In the long run and at the moment.

If you want my definition of bad, then just replace the "good" with "bad".

In that case, we can properly describe God as "bad" for ordering genocide of the masses, promoting the mass-murder of children in foreign lands, and reserving virgins for the warriors of Israel. The Bible also supports slavery.

By your definition, we can only conclude that the Bible and God are "bad".

Or a simpler explanation. Good is what's good for good. Bad is what's bad for good.

That's like me asking you what an honest person is and you responding, "an honest person is a person who is honest".

 

[Cyperium]

In that case, we can properly describe God as "bad" for ordering genocide of the masses, promoting the mass-murder of children in foreign lands, and reserving virgins for the warriors of Israel. The Bible also supports slavery.

By your definition, we can only conclude that the Bible and God are "bad".

Of course, God isn't bad. People are doing bad things - even in the name of God (which makes it even worse).

If God decides to take your life. Then that's not a bad thing for God to do, He is above your life and has made you. What God does cannot be considered bad. You don't know what happens when you die.

If people commit murders then that is bad morally, cause people should respect life, and the giving and taking of life is the choice of God alone.

The Bible was written in a period where slavery was legal. Therefor regulations had to be made in the Bible and slavery had to be adressed in the way that was common to the people.

The Bible carries the personality of the people writing it. But beyond that is a inspiration.

You could get inspired too and what you do will work out for you, but that doesn't mean that you are tied to the inspiration alone, you still have the choice of doing what you want with the inspiration. I don't say that this is what happened, but people may have taken advantage of this.

However, for you to understand the true message in the Bible, you have to be inspired yourself, cause only then will you see what is meant.

That's like me asking you what an honest person is and you responding, "an honest person is a person who is honest".

Sure you must understand the meaning of good and bad? You used alot of words in the quote above, should I explain each one?

I think you allready know the meaning of good and bad. Is it good to steal? Is it good to lie (in general)?

It's good to give, to love, to be honest, to appreciate what is given to us, to respect life and the people around us, to seek comfort, to eat, to live, to die a natural death by age.

In some ways it could even be good to suffer, to have pain, to grieve, to cry.

 

[TheERK]

Freedom comes when doing what's right.

Then why didn't God create us to always do right?

Optimized goodness, and optimized freedom.

 

[§outh§tar]

Of course, God isn't bad. People are doing bad things - even in the name of God (which makes it even worse).

If God decides to take your life. Then that's not a bad thing for God to do, He is above your life and has made you. What God does cannot be considered bad. You don't know what happens when you die.

If people commit murders then that is bad morally, cause people should respect life, and the giving and taking of life is the choice of God alone.

The Bible was written in a period where slavery was legal. Therefor regulations had to be made in the Bible and slavery had to be adressed in the way that was common to the people.

The Bible carries the personality of the people writing it. But beyond that is a inspiration.

I can understand the theology in God having a right to take your life. But when He asks people to OBLITERATE entire cultures and take their virgins and cattle for themselves, there is obviously nothing "good" about that - by YOUR definition. I don't see how that benefits the Israelittes to murder people and take their virgins for themselves, and also to kill even the little ones.

The issue of slavery is also irrespective of whether or not it was "legal", as you claim. That is like saying, at one point in time, God agreed with slavery and later on, changed His mind and said it was a "bad" thing. Only a moron God, creates man in His own image and then commands His own people to enslave their fellow man. Regardless of whether slavery now or 5000 years ago, the issue remains that it was still slavery. If the government made murder legal right now, would that mean that murder is any more "good" than it was when illegal? Of course not! Therefore it is unreasonable to excuse God's condolence of slavery since it was still the supression of another human being. Don't you know that because God actually recommended slavery, consequent slavery of Africans was considered Biblical. If an omnibenevolent God supports slavery, then He is at conflict with His own nature. You also did not address the issue of taking virgins and killing children, both of which are equally distressing, in these times and times before.

You also have to give the reason for why you believe the Bible is written by inspired people. The Bible can't be a reflection of people's "personality" and be inspired at the same time by an omnipotent God. That is definitely out of the picture and you will need a different excuse. It's either one or the other. After all the Bible says that the personality of people is sinful. We know that killing children, stealing virgins and mass murder are not "good". Therefore it has to be one or the other.

You could get inspired too and what you do will work out for you, but that doesn't mean that you are tied to the inspiration alone, you still have the choice of doing what you want with the inspiration. I don't say that this is what happened, but people may have taken advantage of this.

If you aren't "tied" to the inspiration then the inspiration is of no effect and consequently, God's efforts are in vain. So again, either the person is inspired or the person is not inspired. You can't be "half" inspired and "half" non-inspired, as that is unreasonable.

However, for you to understand the true message in the Bible, you have to be inspired yourself, cause only then will you see what is meant.

In that case, God has no reason for punishing people who don't understand the Bible since they are not "inspired". Since a person can't inspire themselves to understand the Bible, it is God's responsibility obviously. Also there are many different interpretations, therefore it is inane to say that one has to be "inspired", that would mean that there is only one right way of interpreting the Bible. If that is the case, then no one can know which way is the right way.

Sure you must understand the meaning of good and bad? You used alot of words in the quote above, should I explain each one?

I think you allready know the meaning of good and bad. Is it good to steal? Is it good to lie (in general)?

It's good to give, to love, to be honest, to appreciate what is given to us, to respect life and the people around us, to seek comfort, to eat, to live, to die a natural death by age.

In some ways it could even be good to suffer, to have pain, to grieve, to cry.

Pretend I don't know what good and bad is and explain it to me without using either word in the explanation.

 

[Cyperium]

I can understand the theology in God having a right to take your life. But when He asks people to OBLITERATE entire cultures and take their virgins and cattle for themselves, there is obviously nothing "good" about that - by YOUR definition. I don't see how that benefits the Israelittes to murder people and take their virgins for themselves, and also to kill even the little ones.

That I can agree with. I suspect that there were other intentions involved by the people that said that God had told them to do these things. God obviously wouldn't tell them to do that, unless He was testing them in some way.

The issue of slavery is also irrespective of whether or not it was "legal", as you claim. That is like saying, at one point in time, God agreed with slavery and later on, changed His mind and said it was a "bad" thing.

God wouldn't say that slavery is good. God wouldn't say that we should become slaves either.

I don't know how people became slaves, was it because of punishment or something to that effect? Or did they just "pick people from the crowd"?

That would effect my answer if you told me. Maybe it isn't right for us to imprison people either? Or carry out death-sentences (which I personally think is morally wrong).

If you aren't "tied" to the inspiration then the inspiration is of no effect and consequently, God's efforts are in vain. So again, either the person is inspired or the person is not inspired. You can't be "half" inspired and "half" non-inspired, as that is unreasonable.

I might be inspired when I paint something, and that painting will show that there was more to it than I thought. That doesn't mean that I didn't paint it with my own personal "mark", even though the message was beyond me.

In that case, God has no reason for punishing people who don't understand the Bible since they are not "inspired". Since a person can't inspire themselves to understand the Bible, it is God's responsibility obviously. Also there are many different interpretations, therefore it is inane to say that one has to be "inspired", that would mean that there is only one right way of interpreting the Bible. If that is the case, then no one can know which way is the right way.

Of course there isn't only one way to interpret the Bible, you can be inspired to interpret it the way that is good for you.

Sometimes we can get inspired by reading the Bible, or we can feel inspiration to read the Bible. Sometimes we read something, then afterwards we get inspired and understand what it meant in the light of the inspiration.

Pretend I don't know what good and bad is and explain it to me without using either word in the explanation.

Ok, I'll give it a try:

Good: What's fair and beneficial for all parts, at best finding a solution that fits everyone while preserving moral (the ability to distinguish right from wrong) and truth.

There's alot more to good things than that, a simple explanation like that won't show it in it's proper light. None other than God can give a truly satisfying definition of "good".

 

[Cyperium]

Then why didn't God create us to always do right?

Optimized goodness, and optimized freedom.

Maybe because there are more to us than being free and doing what's right?

He wanted us to have faith and so on, maybe we are being created as we live?

The Bible tells us about a mystery; that everyone won't have to die, but everyone has to be transformed.

When we become our 'new' selves, then maybe we can understand why this life had to be.

 

[Halcyon]

we can properly describe God as "bad" for ordering genocide of the masses, promoting the mass-murder of children in foreign lands, and reserving virgins for the warriors of Israel. The Bible also supports slavery.
By your definition, we can only conclude that the Bible and God are "bad".

Of course, God isn't bad....What God does cannot be considered bad.

But when He asks people to OBLITERATE entire cultures ...there is obviously nothing "good" about that - by YOUR definition.

That I can agree with.

:m:

 

[camphlps]

the problem with doing what is right, is that right is just a word. To you one thing can be right to me it could be wrong. Some people believe Bush is doing the wrong thing, some say he is doing the right thing.

Its not a matter of right and wrong. Its what you "do" that counts.

"When you do things right, people wont be sure you've done anything at all."

 

[philocrazy]

on freedom in freedom out of freedom in prison
and now my humble cristian friends
is love free? i ask you!!!!!
cause noncristians would like some free loving from you!!!!
peace!!!!!!!!

Philosopher Philocrazy

 

[Cris]

Leo,

In what direction does your 'moral growth' inevitably proceed?

As I have stated already – survival and happiness.

The fixed and respected Moral Boundaries held by all High Civilizations in their Golden Ages seemed to have reached a Zenith and admitted that any change would be downward.

If such civilizations did not survive then their moral code was errant.

Has Morality improved since we have asserted the Doctrine that Freedom trumps everything else?

As I have also said already freedom cannot trump everything. For example being free to murder is not acceptable since it is against survival. Freedom isn’t the same as a moral code.

Well, no. As a matter of fact the much aclaimed Morality of the Middle Class has declined to nothing and what the World is now looking at is a Vast Lower Class.

You appear to be talkng about something entirely different. When Christianity ruled and people felt the reins of its moral dictates there was indeed a type of order. As these fetters of restriction melt away as Christianity loses its stranglehold then the pendulum has begun to swing in the oposite direction. What is now missing is a general acceptance of rational morality to replace the failed religious morality, and the world has not quite grasped that requirement yet. Freedom without restraint is not acceptable.

My personal code is that everyone should be free to do as they wish provided their actions do not restrict the freeom of others. No other law is needed.