What came first The Freedom or The Responcibity

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Is freedom absolute or is there a price to pay from having freedom, and if there is a price to pay, Is It actually freedom?

When does the freedoms of one interfere with the freedoms of others. If there is a limitation is it a physical, mental, material or all three?

 

[juvenissun]

Is freedom absolute or is there a price to pay from having freedom, and if there is a price to pay, Is It actually freedom?

When does the freedoms of one interfere with the freedoms of others. If there is a limitation is it a physical, mental, material or all three?

God says to Adam: you can eat all the fruits in the Garden, except that particular one.
The answer of your question is right in that commandment.

 

[paulm50]

God says to Adam: you can eat all the fruits in the Garden, except that particular one.
The answer of your question is right in that commandment.

He then puts a snake on the tree to tempt Eve.

Is freedom absolute or is there a price to pay from having freedom, and if there is a price to pay, Is It actually freedom?

When does the freedoms of one interfere with the freedoms of others. If there is a limitation is it a physical, mental, material or all three?

You have to quantify freedom. In the West we are about as free as we have ever been, but bombarded with messages to lead us. Buy this car, clothes, drink, burger. Vote for this guy, that guy. And we have the freedom to walk the streets.

Unless we're black and look suspicious to a policeman. Take that as a loose example of freedom, because perspective is different depending on the person. At 18 I wasn't surprised to be frisked for drugs, I was a hippy. At 65, I wuld be shocked to be frisked.

We have the freedom to debate about the truth of Adam and Eve, see it as pure fiction, by people who wanted to deny our freedom. So made the story, said they knew what god wanted from us, and took our freedom to question them.

Even in the 21st Century some want to remove your freedom to think.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

He then puts a snake on the tree to tempt Eve.

You have to quantify freedom. In the West we are about as free as we have ever been, but bombarded with messages to lead us. Buy this car, clothes, drink, burger. Vote for this guy, that guy. And we have the freedom to walk the streets.

Unless we're black and look suspicious to a policeman. Take that as a loose example of freedom, because perspective is different depending on the person. At 18 I wasn't surprised to be frisked for drugs, I was a hippy. At 65, I wuld be shocked to be frisked.

We have the freedom to debate about the truth of Adam and Eve, see it as pure fiction, by people who wanted to deny our freedom. So made the story, said they knew what god wanted from us, and took our freedom to question them.

Even in the 21st Century some want to remove your freedom to think.

Freedom is an issue uncluttered by the options that our so-called prosperity has forced upon us.. It is a fundamental issue as basic as breathing. It is the freedom to be an individual and our allowance of others to be the same.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

God says to Adam: you can eat all the fruits in the Garden, except that particular one.
The answer of your question is right in that commandment.

A commandment is not a freedom and the example you gave is not one made by those who were experienced in dealing with groups. They were two people without experience or understanding.

 

[paulm50]

Freedom is an issue uncluttered by the options that our so-called prosperity has forced upon us.. It is a fundamental issue as basic as breathing. It is the freedom to be an individual and our allowance of others to be the same.

You missed my original point. Why put a snake in the tree to tempt us, knowing Eve would fail the test. If god didn't want it eaten? As an all knowing god, he must of known the outcome, putting the snake there. Makes him complicit. It's call entrapment.

As for the freedom, yes today we are bombarded with modern temptations, we don't need and often can't afford. However the church never has given us our freedom. In the past it denied it at the point of a sword. Islam is going through what Christianity experienced not so long ago. And still many clergy and religious people try to deny us the freedom to think for ourselves. Thankfully they mostly fail. Even now the church wants to deny some their freedom.

 

[quatona]

Is freedom absolute

No, "freedom" always implies an (unfortunately often silent) "freedom to..." or a "freedom from...".

 

[juvenissun]

A commandment is not a freedom and the example you gave is not one made by those who were experienced in dealing with groups. They were two people without experience or understanding.

The content is: Do as you wish, but be prepared to face the consequence.
No experience and knowledge? Then no responsibility. But it will come very quickly.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

You missed my original point. Why put a snake in the tree to tempt us, knowing Eve would fail the test. If god didn't want it eaten? As an all knowing god, he must of known the outcome, putting the snake there. Makes him complicit. It's call entrapment.

I'm not interested in fables. I'm very aware of the descriptiveness in the Bible. One in particular is the presence of The Tree of life which if man was created to live forever, why did God create a tree who was supposed to grant him what he already had, but that's another story.

As for the freedom, yes today we are bombarded with modern temptations, we don't need and often can't afford. However the church never has given us our freedom. In the past it denied it at the point of a sword. Islam is going through what Christianity experienced not so long ago. And still many clergy and religious people try to deny us the freedom to think for ourselves. Thankfully they mostly fail. Even now the church wants to deny some their freedom.

Can we talk philosophy here please? Thank you.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

The content is: Do as you wish, but be prepared to face the consequence.
No experience and knowledge? Then no responsibility. But it will come very quickly.

I'm sorry. I thought this was a philosophy section and I could get atleast a quasi-secular responce to a question that is so fundamental in today's world it's scary. Everybody is talking about personal rights and group rights, but those rights are also freedoms to independently do what will cause no one else hurt.

The whole Religion against secularism is this very struggle and the reason the Supreme court was brought into this, because we as human beings couldn't afford to grant others the freedoms we have because we refused to see where our freedoms end and theirs began.

I was trying to come at this another way instead of busting heads between secuar and religion, but I geuss I'm failing miserably.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

No, "freedom" always implies an (unfortunately often silent) "freedom to..." or a "freedom from...".

I was speaking about a persons individual freedoms or rights within a community and where that persons freedom to be themselves ends and another's begins.

 

[quatona]

I was speaking about a persons individual freedoms or rights within a community and where that persons freedom to be themselves ends and another's begins.

In which particular model of society?

 

[juvenissun]

I'm sorry. I thought this was a philosophy section and I could get atleast a quasi-secular responce to a question that is so fundamental in today's world it's scary. Everybody is talking about personal rights and group rights, but those rights are also freedoms to independently do what will cause no one else hurt.

The whole Religion against secularism is this very struggle and the reason the Supreme court was brought into this, because we as human beings couldn't afford to grant others the freedoms we have because we refused to see where our freedoms end and theirs began.

I was trying to come at this another way instead of busting heads between secuar and religion, but I geuss I'm failing miserably.

It is all in one principle: in person or in group (e.g. religious vs atheistic), there is no 100% freedom. There is only a "degree of freedom", on anything, at anywhere, includes the Heaven. If Adam does not touch the forbidden fruit, he has 100% freedom. If he touched the fruit, he has 0% freedom.

Similarly, if we do not touch the line, we can enjoy 100% freedom. To human, the line always exists somehow, somewhere. We can easily find it out by just exercise our freedom.

 

[Dave RP]

We value our freedom, such as it is but freedom in western society is constrained by law and by convention. In the UK it is a crime to incite racial or religious hatred and the definitions of what is acceptable behaviour have changed over time. It seems now that society is much more sensitive, and words/ expressions which were totally acceptable 40 years ago would get you arrested or would result in you losing your job now. So you do not have the freedom to send sexist texts to your friends if you are in the public eye, as a scientist you can't make a poor slightly sexist joke and expect to keep your job, so definitions of freedom have changed and political correctness has meant a significant reduction in freedom of speech.

If I dared to say that there is too much immigration into Britain, I would probably be labelled racist, if I said there were too many Muslims in (whatever town)..... I would be swamped with social media condemnation. Freedom is therefore relative.

 

[juvenissun]

We value our freedom, such as it is but freedom in western society is constrained by law and by convention. In the UK it is a crime to incite racial or religious hatred and the definitions of what is acceptable behaviour have changed over time. It seems now that society is much more sensitive, and words/ expressions which were totally acceptable 40 years ago would get you arrested or would result in you losing your job now. So you do not have the freedom to send sexist texts to your friends if you are in the public eye, as a scientist you can't make a poor slightly sexist joke and expect to keep your job, so definitions of freedom have changed and political correctness has meant a significant reduction in freedom of speech.

If I dared to say that there is too much immigration into Britain, I would probably be labelled racist, if I said there were too many Muslims in (whatever town)..... I would be swamped with social media condemnation. Freedom is therefore relative.

What you said does not happen in China at all, for example. Why? Does China still preserve a better social system? Or, your country just asked for this situation on herself?

 

[Dave RP]

What you said does not happen in China at all, for example. Why? Does China still preserve a better social system? Or, your country just asked for this situation on herself?

What doesn't happen in China, sorry but I'm confused.

Are you saying that China has total freedom of expression without limit (which would surprise me), or China does not have excessive political correctness in its culture?

 

[juvenissun]

What doesn't happen in China, sorry but I'm confused.

Are you saying that China has total freedom of expression without limit (which would surprise me), or China does not have excessive political correctness in its culture?

No.
According to what you described, no one will call you racist or or condemn you on that opinion.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

In which particular model of society?

Society is society. It doesn't matter the model because the very existence of a society impedes freedom by it's very nature. Society equals structure which defines the perimeters of acceptability. This structure acts as a pacifier to placate humanity into accepting the social structure they are born into and to define anything outside that with the fearful label of chaos.

The idea of unabridged freedom is an enticing tidbit of eroticism that we play around in our minds and fantasize about but when we truly find someone who is really free it scares the living daylights out of us. We are born into a lie that states who and what we are based on the structure of our physical bodies and one that fits extremely well into the society around us.

Society determines what it is to be us long before we find out just who we are and any discrepancies are dealt with by the worst tools imaginable. That is shame, guilt and in the end ostracizing or incarceration. If a person's individuality are too opposed to the imagery of normalcy depicted by society they will be striped of their humanity, demonized and blotted out of society.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

It is all in one principle: in person or in group (e.g. religious vs atheistic), there is no 100% freedom. There is only a "degree of freedom", on anything, at anywhere, includes the Heaven. If Adam does not touch the forbidden fruit, he has 100% freedom. If he touched the fruit, he has 0% freedom.

Similarly, if we do not touch the line, we can enjoy 100% freedom. To human, the line always exists somehow, somewhere. We can easily find it out by just exercise our freedom.

Adam never had any freedom because the fact that if God is supposed to be all seeing and all knowing then that entity knew exactly what would happen and how it would come about. All the chess pieces were placed there to be used and used they were.
The only ultimate answer to anything that is in the Bible is that God works through mysterious ways, which is the truest statement that a believer can state. To those who disbelieve it is a cop out, but those with the mindsets they have are set and this is the ultimate truth about faith and reason.

Can we please remove ourselves from these Biblical references before this thread implodes?

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

What you said does not happen in China at all, for example. Why? Does China still preserve a better social system? Or, your country just asked for this situation on herself?

Are you assuming that he actively disregarded other cultures simply because he concentrated on the culture he knows? One can only speak with authority on what one knows of.