Lucifer Wanted Freedom Too

[Leo Volont]

Lucifer Wanted Freedom Too

Over 150 years ago at La Salette France, Our Lady the Blessed Virgin said that in the not too distant future, people would lose the sense of morality – that people would no longer have enough moral compass to distinguish between right and wrong.

Look around us today. Our Politicians tell us that Greed is a virtue and that Freedom from moral constraints is a Political Ideal worth fighting for. The Political Leaders of the West are seeking the counsel of Satan, and ask themselves not ‘What would God do?”, but when they look over events and their make their choices seem to be asking themselves “What would Adolf Hitler do?” War is now the first resort. Pentagon Planners now openly advocate World Conquest.

People here may complain that I am speaking in reference to extreme cases. Yes I am, but the moral corruption does extend far. I’ve noticed people here finding it quizzical that I seem to find the Ideals of Freedom and Independence as opposed to the Religious Ideal – who wouldn’t want to be Free and Independent?

But free to do what?. Independent of whom? People now think it is an Ideal to be free of God… independent of God. Society has a new Anti-Morality substituting for what should be a Moral Code.

Lucifer himself only wanted to be Free and Independent. Our Society’s obsession with freedom and independence is equally a Rebellion against God.

Yes, in a World that belongs to the Antichrist, which is almost universally corrupt, there are no Pure Human Institutions with which one can safely conform, and so Souls seeking Righteousness will present the appearance of exercising Freedom and the appearance of being Independent. But this is because they are adrift in the Sea – they would have preferred solid land, but the Political and Religious decisions of generations before have sunk that from beneath their feet. The activity that appears to be the exercise of Freedom and Independence is only the circled swimming of searching for dry land. And in this situation where all is morally awash, the only certainty is that more water is not the solution.

But we can take comfort in that the End is Near. As is said in the Sacred Bhagavad Gita, “Whenever Righteousness declines, God Himself manifests Himself in order to re-establish Morality”. We will see this Divine Manifestation by the year 2012.

 

[Neildo]

I’ve noticed people here finding it quizzical that I seem to find the Ideals of Freedom and Independence as opposed to the Religious Ideal – who wouldn’t want to be Free and Independent?

But free to do what?. Independent of whom? People now think it is an Ideal to be free of God… independent of God. Society has a new Anti-Morality substituting for what should be a Moral Code.

Lucifer himself only wanted to be Free and Independent. Our Society’s obsession with freedom and independence is equally a Rebellion against God.

I agree. That's basically what freedom is. Freedom is being free to do anything which eventually, one eventually won't be able to tell the difference between right and wrong all because it's "their" choice to do what they want to do. There is no such thing as freedom because there will always be laws to put us in place but if we want total freedom, anarchy and chaos will reign and morality will be gone. I find it amusing how people don't want to live under God's rules (whatever they may be) and be oppressed by him/her/it yet have no problem living under some other person's oppressive rule, heh.

Everyone here in America that thinks we're free, we aren't. We're still mindless drone slaves as everyone else is in the world and in the past except that materialism snuck it's way to give us minor rewards for our work to make us think we're free. In the end, we're not. We're the same as everyone else except our greed and materialism makes us think we're not.

One quick beef I want to mention, does anyone else but me have a problem with Bush's "War to Promote Democracy"? This is absolutely no different than all the other religious wars in the past. People going to war to force other people to follow their way of life because they think it's perfect. Forcing others to be a democracy is no different than forcing them to be Muslim or Christian. Religion and government is the same darn thing: control. Those people go through hell and have all their past way of life thrown out the window to live a new and supposedly better one. Absolutely wrong. When will we ever just live and let live? From our point of view, we think the people over there have it so bad and are oppressed but they don't, they just have a different style of living and nothing is gonna change that. Anything, and I mean anything done over there that we think is bad, we've done it ourselves, even when it comes to the higher ups killing our own, or other, people.

- N

 

[Leo Volont]

I find it amusing how people don't want to live under God's rules (whatever they may be) and be oppressed by him/her/it yet have no problem living under some other person's oppressive rule, heh.

- N

Yeah! I always wondered about how America is supposed to be so Free. But the politicians had just farmed tyranny out to the Corporations. Everyone has to follow the Corporate Rules or you don't eat.

Then there is all the Moral Laws of America. The U.S. keeps more people in jail then any other nation, per capita. And most have not committed violent crimes, or even crimes against property. They are in jail for crimes against other peoples version of Morality, particularly the drug laws: It is against the law to be Euphoric unless you have a perfectly natural reason. You are not allowed to be Eurphoric in a Democratic Capitalisim unless you won an election or screwed someone over really well in a business deal!

 

[Cris]

The original basis of British law, which was essentially adopted by most civilized nations including the USA stated –

“Everyone should be free to do anything they wish providing such actions do not interfere with the freedom of others.” Most laws can be based on this single principle.

The closest any western religion came to this is the Wiccan rede “an harm none do what thou will”.

Confucianism - Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. Analects 12:2

Buddhism - Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. Udana-Varga 5,1

Hinduism - This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you. Mahabharata 5,1517

Judaism - What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary. Talmud, Shabbat 3id

Most got it right but Christianity screwed it up to suit their particular brand of intrusive authoritarianism.

Christianity - All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew 7:1

The problem with your discussion on freedom is that you are missing the essential ingredient of respecting the freedom of others. A truth that was well understood long before Christianity arrived. And within that understanding morality will thrive quite well, however you will need to define what is meant by morality if you disagree.

What is needed is a framework for the world population to understand and accept the above “good” versions of the golden rule. Too many unfortunately take freedom to mean anything they wish without constraint. With the declining influence of religious rule and fear we are being left with a void where no one is sure what to do. While many believe a return to the old failed ways of religious intolerance and rule by fear would help, it won’t, too many are no longer ignorant morons that allowed religions to thrive. Education and science is slowly replacing the baseless supernaturalism of religions and there is no way to put the genie back in the bottle.

As people appreciate their new freedoms and knowledge the only thing lacking is a framework for moral guidance. Free thought organizations like secular humanism are on the increase but we can expect a period of chaos while the new paradigms take effect. It will help significantly when the Islamic controlled governments of the world eventually fail and secular rule replaces them. But even then a positive philosophy needs to grow.

Ultimately morality must be based on whatever is best for human survival and happiness. Nothing else makes sense or desired.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Lucifer Wanted Freedom Too

Over 150 years ago at La Salette France, Our Lady the Blessed Virgin said that in the not too distant future, people would lose the sense of morality – that people would no longer have enough moral compass to distinguish between right and wrong.

Look around us today. Our Politicians tell us that Greed is a virtue and that Freedom from moral constraints is a Political Ideal worth fighting for. The Political Leaders of the West are seeking the counsel of Satan, and ask themselves not ‘What would God do?”, but when they look over events and their make their choices seem to be asking themselves “What would Adolf Hitler do?” War is now the first resort. Pentagon Planners now openly advocate World Conquest.

People here may complain that I am speaking in reference to extreme cases. Yes I am, but the moral corruption does extend far. I’ve noticed people here finding it quizzical that I seem to find the Ideals of Freedom and Independence as opposed to the Religious Ideal – who wouldn’t want to be Free and Independent?

But free to do what?. Independent of whom? People now think it is an Ideal to be free of God… independent of God. Society has a new Anti-Morality substituting for what should be a Moral Code.

Lucifer himself only wanted to be Free and Independent. Our Society’s obsession with freedom and independence is equally a Rebellion against God.

Yes, in a World that belongs to the Antichrist, which is almost universally corrupt, there are no Pure Human Institutions with which one can safely conform, and so Souls seeking Righteousness will present the appearance of exercising Freedom and the appearance of being Independent. But this is because they are adrift in the Sea – they would have preferred solid land, but the Political and Religious decisions of generations before have sunk that from beneath their feet. The activity that appears to be the exercise of Freedom and Independence is only the circled swimming of searching for dry land. And in this situation where all is morally awash, the only certainty is that more water is not the solution.

But we can take comfort in that the End is Near. As is said in the Sacred Bhagavad Gita, “Whenever Righteousness declines, God Himself manifests Himself in order to re-establish Morality”. We will see this Divine Manifestation by the year 2012.

Tell me Leo,

What exactly is 'right' and 'wrong'? Please define them.

 

[davewhite04]

Welcome back Cris, I hope you are well!

Dave

 

[Cris]

Crunchy - yes a definition of morality will help.

Dave - hey thanks for remembering me.

 

[spidergoat]

I'll take freedom from theocracy over getting stoned for blasphemy any day. According to God's "moral compass", it was apparently ok to wage a crusade against non-believers, suppress the scientific research of Galileo, torture and burn heretics, treat women like property, etc, etc...

 

[Jenyar]

Most got it right but Christianity screwed it up to suit their particular brand of intrusive authoritarianism.

Christianity - All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew 7:1

You'll see that Matthew is the only one that advocates action. The right action, not like the ones Spidergoat complain about below. The others are passive: if nobody does anything for you, you're not asked to do anything for them.

I'll take freedom from theocracy over getting stoned for blasphemy any day. According to God's "moral compass", it was apparently ok to wage a crusade against non-believers, suppress the scientific research of Galileo, torture and burn heretics, treat women like property, etc, etc...

"The condemnation of Galileo... was only apparently in defense of the Bible. In reality it was mainly a defense of the Graeco-medieval world picture and particularly the authority of Aristotle, with whose teachings on physics, biology and philosophy the biblical world picture was identified." - Hans Küng, Existiert Gott?​

Just like WW2, Christianity was the tool people needed to justify their political ambitions. Sometimes its place was corrupted from inside, other times from outside. Hitler needed to corrupt it to attain his goals, and he used his influence and ideals to achieve that. In Galileo's time, the church had a vested interest in the world view and as a political institution it also had political fears. There were political and personal interests hidden behind a religious face - just like in Jesus' time. Great theologians like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who opposed the material possesiveness of their religious leaders, were supressed and imprisoned. Why do we never hear praise for them?

What you see in the crusades (which isn't so black and white as you wish to believe, anyway), suppression of ideas and oppression of people are just that: abuse of power. This isn't limited to religion, and even less to Christianity. You have your freedom because someone, somehere fought for it.

 

[spidergoat]

Jenyar, I agree. Christianity is only as moral as the people who believe in it. This implies that following Christianity cannot guarantee moral superiority. Just look at all the pedophiles in the Church today. The Papal Heiarchy fell to the same desires that many ideologies do. If you think you are right, you can use that to justify anything. I just saw a documentary on the 60's radical group the Weathermen. They saw the killing in Vietnam by their government, and decided to stop it by any means necessary. Some of their actions hurt innocent people, which they rationalized by saying that no American not fighting the government was innocent. Any ideology is a slippery slope towards evil, including the ideology of Christianity. How can this be avoided? Perhaps by keeping religious institutions politically powerless, or acknowledging the doubt and uncertainty in any political decision.



P.S. Leo Volont's ideas are rediculous. If Lucifer=bad and Lucifer=freedom then freedom=bad? Come on. Moral codes are only as effective as their enforcement, and to be totally effective, you need totalitarianism. True morality is in the heart of the individual, and should properly be cultivated in freedom.

 

[Neildo]

P.S. Leo Volont's ideas are rediculous. If Lucifer=bad and Lucifer=freedom then freedom=bad? Come on. Moral codes are only as effective as their enforcement, and to be totally effective, you need totalitarianism. True morality is in the heart of the individual, and should properly be cultivated in freedom.

I think that's the point of Leo's post. What is freedom? To be free. To be free from what? You can't be free if someone is calling the shots and keeping people in check which is what God's laws do. And since God is the one on top, he's the totalitarianist who creates those moral codes for us. If we all started with freedom, we would have been in chaos and anarchy from the begining with no enforced morals.

He's using Lucifer as an example, not to just say freedom is bad because Lucifer wanted it, it's what can happen with freedom. It basically comes down to totalitarianism being the right way since it keeps us all in check and since we all want freedom and since more and more people are moving away from God, corruption will occur. However, we only think we're free but we're not. Rather than having God keeping us in check, we're still kept in check by humans in power that make us think we're free, so they're basically our God, heh.

Even if true morality is in the heart of the individual, morality imposes laws on themselves which makes the immoral more powerful because the moral aren't able to do certain things to the immoral due to it being immoral to do so. In that case, evil will always win because they're not limited by any laws. The good peoples only saving grace is of that supposedly good, powerful totalitarian ruler to keep everyone in check which is God. Men are easily corrupt and aren't really the ones who should be in that top position.

- N

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I think that's the point of Leo's post. What is freedom? To be free. To be free from what? You can't be free if someone is calling the shots and keeping people in check which is what God's laws do. And since God is the one on top, he's the totalitarianist who creates those moral codes for us. If we all started with freedom, we would have been in chaos and anarchy from the begining with no enforced morals.

He's using Lucifer as an example, not to just say freedom is bad because Lucifer wanted it, it's what can happen with freedom. It basically comes down to totalitarianism being the right way since it keeps us all in check and since we all want freedom and since more and more people are moving away from God, corruption will occur. However, we only think we're free but we're not. Rather than having God keeping us in check, we're still kept in check by humans in power that make us think we're free, so they're basically our God, heh.

Even if true morality is in the heart of the individual, morality imposes laws on themselves which makes the immoral more powerful because the moral aren't able to do certain things to the immoral due to it being immoral to do so. In that case, evil will always win because they're not limited by any laws. The good peoples only saving grace is of that supposedly good, powerful totalitarian ruler to keep everyone in check which is God. Men are easily corrupt and aren't really the ones who should be in that top position.

- N

I think Leo's post has no point until he attempts to define 'right' and 'wrong' (or 'good' and 'evil') and shows evidence that there exists an entity
called 'God'.

 

[the preacher]

since when does any of leo's post's have any point, how can you take anyone seriously.
if all they do is quote their dreams as truth, and who has angels and the virgin mary sitting on his shoulders,telling him what to do.
Now come on.

 

[Neildo]

His post is basically one to make you think. Read his questions and answer them to yourself.

who wouldn’t want to be Free and Independent?

Would you like to be free and independant? Isn't that what the USA is all about?

But free to do what? Independent of whom?

Freedom and independence, free from who and to do what? Go ahead and ask yourself that.

People now think it is an Ideal to be free of God… independent of God.

I don't know about you, but from all the athiestic posts I read and how it quickly spreads, it seems to be true.

And now taking God out of the picture, who is the ultimate ruler, change that word to your government. Since you want freedom and independence, what does that give you and exactly who are you free from?

Society has a new Anti-Morality substituting for what should be a Moral Code.

Moral codes do not grant freedom or independence so exactly how is one free and independent? We're not yet so many people seem to want to seek freedom and independence so it's basically all an illusion.

Lucifer himself only wanted to be Free and Independent. Our Society’s obsession with freedom and independence is equally a Rebellion against God.

Relgion and government is basically the same thing whereas government tends to be more physical and religion more supernatural. So switch words around between government and religion where you see fit and ask yourself those questions again and come to your own conclusions about what that all means. And of course I may be reading a bit too much into his post, but it does have some interesting philosophical meaning to it.

- N

 

[Leo Volont]

Relgion and government is basically the same thing

- N

No. Religion is a Moral Force for a Collective Ethic. Government under a Theocracy would be an Agency for this Ethic. But when Government makes it a point to erradicate Religion, then Government is a Force for Exploitation, and organized Pillage.

You need to be able to see the distinction between a Priestly Establishment of a Collective Society, and the Barbarian imposition of a Revenue Farming Establishment.

Religious Institution have not always been perfect; however, their saving grace is their published moral and ethical intent. When they stray too far into selfish exploitation at the behest of corrupt fat Bishops, there are Established and Institutionalized Doctrines that almost automatically serve to engender necessary reforms -- comebacks. But with Barbarian Secularism, the greater the exploitation, the greater the perception that they are being successful in what they want to do in the first place, which is to screw people over in order to concentrate all wealth into their own hands.

So yes, Theocratic Government and Secular Government have structural similarities, but you cannot forget that one is Good and the other is Evil.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Leo,

Your assertions are relying on concepts either undefined or unproven.
If you want them considered then its time to begin defining and proving.
What exactly is 'good' and 'evil'? Please define them.

 

[spidergoat]

Secular governments have codes of ethics, too. It is not true at all that "Our Politicians tell us that Greed is a virtue and that Freedom from moral constraints is a Political Ideal worth fighting for.". Politicians may act greedily, but when they are found out, they pay the price. Please tell me which political group endorses "freedom from moral constraints". Even libertarians, with their emphasis on personal freedom acknowledge that it is immoral to impose on the freedoms of others. It's just that secular moral codes adapt to emerging conditions, while religious codes are more fixed. Even religious moral codes have evolved somewhat to fit the times. What about passages from the bible like Psalms 137:9,

137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

This passage seems to endorse infantacide under certain circumstances, something most modern people would consider immoral, even towards your enemies.

 

[Jenyar]

This passage seems to endorse infantacide under certain circumstances, something most modern people would consider immoral, even towards your enemies.

That's because you don't use the Bible correctly or with much seriousness. If it was a law or even suggested as a law, it would have been in the first five books - the pentateuch, or more commonly, the Law.

Psalms on the other hand are poems, songs and other forms of spontaneous expression. Psalm 137 is a lamentation for justice. That line shows just how seriously the Israelites were abused by the Edomites. It's like something one of the Jews in Hitler's concentration camps would say about their German captors.

Endorse infanticide? Not.

 

[spidergoat]

Interesting interpretation. What about stoning adulterers?

 

[Leo Volont]

Leo,

Your assertions are relying on concepts either undefined or unproven.
If you want them considered then its time to begin defining and proving.
What exactly is 'good' and 'evil'? Please define them.

So now you want me to teach kindergarten.

Good is social impulse. Evil is the barbarian impulse to plunder.

Grow up. Do you want to argue or do you want to just grab onto me and drag your feet to slow me down?