Freedom is about possibilities. In a religion (example): Where the spirit is there is freedom. “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.”
No, because meaning itself implies a connection with objective reality. This being the case, just as you cannot, by defining gravity as magnetism, levitate a non-metallic object by the application of magnetic force, neither can a society define freedom in a manner inimical to the principle that word represents and be anything but despotic. On the contrary, that is precisely the point. Please, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Is the devil not a spirit, and does he not offer an infinitude of possibilities?
Yeah, you can't change the world by changing the words you use to describe it. You have to be consistent. That's the problem I have with your definition of freedom, people already use the word freedom to mean something. Just like in your example, someone redefines the word gravity (freedom) which everybody already agrees on what it means, to something else (magnetism) and expect that to be what the word means. You know, I could stick my fingers in my ears and sing la-la-la-you're-wrong too.
The father of lies who was a murderer from the beginning is about inequality, which is tyranny and death, the Spirit of Truth is about equality, which is freedom and life: “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.”
Freedom generally refers to the capacity of a person to take action based on the circumstances they are in.
Which I clearly am... ...but you somehow imagine I'm obligated to be consistent with the ideas of others. If you think everyone agrees with you as to what freedom means, you are the poster boy for the disease of parochialism. Sure, like you haven't essentially been doing it from the beginning. I get all that, but you didn't answer the question.
The answer was a rejection of an infinitude of possibilities under North Korean (devil)...tyranny. How can a lying spirit allow truth to be free? It cannot, because truth destroys lies, hence tyranny opposes freedom of speech, but good can allow bad to exist, because good is there to save or win over the bad.
freedom is simply when you are removed from servitude and placed under franchise contract, obey by whip verses by contract. and if you want to use it for the constitution you cant use it anyway you like by todays desired usage, you need to use it in its original ofrm, a citizen 'franchise', it forms the office of 'citizen'.
thats what these social developers do, the lobby the gun bearers to hold the people hostage to their agenda.
Not so much with the ideas of others, but with the word usage of others. Otherwise you're just not speaking the same language. If you answer "who committed the murder?" with "Bob" but Bob is actually innocent and you used to word "Bob" to refer to Steve, then there'd be problems. This entire thread is an acknowledgement to other people's views and so that I hear them. I also acknowledge other interpretations of the word. Throughout this thread, RiaRaeb, Frank Apisa, Honest Joe, TBryant, jmblt2000, ArmySoldier, Diablo, DPMartin, maat and VotreAltesse (and that's just the first page) have supplied their understanding of freedom, some of which I agree with, some of which I respectfully don't. I have questioned some of them as I see fit, but I don't fail to understand them. I think I have a fairly broad understanding of what people mean when they use the word, although I still don't know what to add to that understanding from your perspective. I think I have been forthcoming with opportunity for discussion.
We're using the language that we use, English. If it seems like nonsense to you, that's your problem.
Alas, there is no language that cannot be readily converted to nonsense, as you so consistently demonstrate. It would be, if you were making any sense. Things being what they are...
This thread inadvertently supplies an excellent example of freedom in it's various disagreements between individuals as to what said freedom entails.
That's one way of looking at it. Another is that it's almost nothing but vacuous philosophizing which serves no greater purpose than to distract attention from the critical distinction between liberty and license, the cognizance of which is essential to any understanding of freedom that's worth having.
Freedom is not a birth privilege. It's something you must take. Les it be taken from you. That's why we got our 2nd ammendment. That's what makes our system so great. It gives us complete control over our shackles. We can tighten or loosen them based on who we elect. And if something goes wrong and tyranny takes a hold, we at least still have our guns to fight it. That's why I believe that the second Ammendment should be followed verbatim. Anyway Too bad that many Americans don't exercise the full scope of their voting rights
True freedom would be being the only person on your very own planet. You could do anything at any time because there would be no one but you.
Most of the things I want to do involve other people, it would seem I couldn't do "anything at any time" in such a situation.
It seems to me the lack of ability to do anything I want to do would make me very unfree. In fact, I would probably have little other choice than to spend my days looking for food, it seems I have very few options in what actions to take in practice.
Oh, you would have everything you need for a very comfortable life. In fact, you would be just like the biblical Adam in Genesis 2:4-20 but without another human. Adam did just fine. He was created before the plants and animals. Then, when he got those things he actually became unhappy and when he got another person to keep him company he ended up losing everything. It's like being a wealthy happy-go-lucky bachelor. One day he decides to add someone to his life so he gets married. Then, after awhile, they get divorced and he ends up losing maybe half of his stuff and becoming very unhappy. He's worse off after that than he ever was before he added another person to his life. So life Adam, his future life becomes one of sorrow and regret. Jesus met a guy who was infested with demons. Jesus purged the guy of his demons. The problem was that the guy ended up with even more demons. Sometimes by trying to make a situation better you end up making it worse. http://www.bricktestament.com/the_life_of_jesus/demons_return_in_greater_numbers/lk04_31.html (12 pictures)
I would say other people is one of the things I need for a very comfortable life. I certainly don't enjoy that kind of loneliness. I though the Bible states that God says that it isn't good for man to be alone, Genesis 2:18.
God had never thought about that until after he had already created everything else. Most people pair up before they create their lives and then they do it together. Some people, like Adam, create their lives (fame, fortune) and then find someone to share it with.
I think you would need to be completely alone on an uncharted island in the South Pacific with lots of sunshine, rain, mangos, breadfruit, coconuts, pigs, sea life, and stones that you can make tools from in order to be free. Then you have to hope you don't become ill with an appendicitis, gall stones, hernia, cancer, stroke, or any other common disease. That's freedom.
