Religious Typology Quiz

Tell us why you're afraid of adult conversation. All you do is attack the messenger. We should've been able to talk about Plato's Cave. It's obvious you Googled it.

Hey asshole. Any dimwit could write "kant ethics" in their address bar and find search results that Kant argued AGAINST pleasure as the basis for ethics. You are a stupid fucking asshole.
 
Ephesians 4:26. "Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:"

James 1:19 "Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:"

Let's read Ephesians in the NIV so we can place it into better context:

26 “In your anger do not sin”[d]: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, 27 and do not give the devil a foothold.

This is a better translation of that verse, basically it tells you not to go to bed angry.

It is even better in context if you start at the beginning (Same chapter 4):

2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.
 
Let's read Ephesians in the NIV so we can place it into better context:

26 “In your anger do not sin”[d]: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, 27 and do not give the devil a foothold.

This is a better translation of that verse, basically it tells you not to go to bed angry.

It is even better in context if you start at the beginning (Same chapter 4):

2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

When I set out to read the Bible front to back I chose the NRSV. I love the flowery language of the KJV and so I tend to quote it more often, but, indeed, the newer translations are fantastic.
 
I can see why you want to keep it simple. No worries.

If one goes strictly by the dictionary definition, then no country on the planet is free because they are all constrained. For example, your neighbor is constrained by law from blowing your head off for being a moron. Ergo, to simple-minds, the neighbor isn’t free.

If freedom just means the absence of restraint on one's actions, one could be free to sit in front of the TV all day, mentally atrophy, and live a life of sloth, gluttony, and sin.

That is no sentient person's idea of freedom, and it is in fact a type of slavery. Slavery to ignorance, vice, sin, and desire
 
When I set out to read the Bible front to back I chose the NRSV. I love the flowery language of the KJV and so I tend to quote it more often, but, indeed, the newer translations are fantastic.

I compared it to when I was taking classes in Bible College (I was forced to attend the classes after I made the unfortunate decision to tell my mother I was not a believer). The classes I took studied the bible in original Greek and Hebrew (I did NOT study Aramaic, thankfully). The newer translations are definitely better understood (and better translated) than KJV.
 
If freedom just means the absence of restraint on one's actions, one could be free to sit in front of the TV all day, mentally atrophy, and live a life of sloth, gluttony, and sin.

Is that not freedom in the same way that "religious freedom" is? How is it not freedom?

That is no sentient person's idea of freedom

That sounds dangerously like "No True Scotsman".

, and it is in fact a type of slavery. Slavery to ignorance, vice, sin, and desire

But is not one free to pursue those things if that is what they want? Look at the people on this forum. They are "free" to be as insulting and vicious to each other as imaginable. And we see it with many posts. Why is THAT any less "free" than the high minded philosophical aphorism you continuously quote?
 
Hey asshole. Any dimwit could write "kant ethics" in their address bar and find search results that Kant argued AGAINST pleasure as the basis for ethics. You are a stupid fucking asshole.
Most of western society still lives under Kant's ethics of pleasure for the group as a whole. I Kant smoke tobacco inside a building because it brings displeasure to the majority of the group. Covid proved why Kant is wrong. Masks, jabs, and covid passports tried to make all of us conform to stupidity. Covid was an attempt to do away with individual freedoms.
 
Most of western society still lives under Kant's ethics of pleasure for the group as a whole. I Kant smoke tobacco inside a building because it brings displeasure to the majority of the group. Covid proved why Kant is wrong. Masks, jabs, and covid passports tried to make all of us conform to stupidity. Covid was an attempt to do away with individual freedoms.

We're done.
 
I'm curious how this is "freedom". Knowledge of one's self is certainly a virtue, as is control of one's desires and passions. Does it create "freedom" by eliminating something that holds one back? Or is it freedom per se? Because that sounds more like an aphorism than an actual philosophical position. You know, like "God is love". Does that mean that God literally is the feeling of Love? Or does it mean that God embodies all the features of "love", but that doesn't DEFINE love.

As one example, I suggest you investigate Buddhism. Basic Buddhist philosopy explains quite well in my opinion how attachment to desire, to passion, to material possession, etc. is form of suffering and slavery.

Stoicism is another example of a philosophy that emphasizes moral freedom

You don't have to agree with it, you could just consider it as a legitimate view of liberation and slavery.
 
Last edited:
Is that not freedom in the same way that "religious freedom" is? How is it not freedom?



That sounds dangerously like "No True Scotsman".



But is not one free to pursue those things if that is what they want? Look at the people on this forum. They are "free" to be as insulting and vicious to each other as imaginable. And we see it with many posts. Why is THAT any less "free" than the high minded philosophical aphorism you continuously quote?

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...Religious-Typology-Quiz&p=5503543#post5503543

I've made it a point to learn about the various conceptions of human freedom from a range of world philosophical and religious traditions. I see no harm in opening my mind to the long debate about the nature of liberation.

If you want to believe the epitomy of human freedom is just the absence of contraints on one's actions, that's fine.
 
Philosophers and theologians have been debating the nature of freedom for centuries, so I don't have brilliant answers of my own. I don't think the absence of restraint on action is an adequate definition.
But I Iike FDR's formulation of the four freedoms, and the formulations of freedom by The Buddha, Jesus, Utilitarianism, and German Romantics, aka freedom from the slavery of ignorance and sin, and freedom to create and participate something larger than oneself.

Norman Rockwell’s work of the Four Freedoms is classic.

4freedoms-729x1024.jpg
 
As one example, I suggest you investigate Buddhism. Basic Buddhist philosopy explains quite well in my opinion how attachment to desire, to passion, to material possession, etc. is form of suffering and slavery.

So avoiding the constraints of desire, passion and possession. Fair enough.

Stoicism is another example of a philosophy that emphasizes moral freedom

What is "moral freedom"?
 
^^ John Stuart Mill's conception of freedom is a good one.

I was looking at some notes I have from a class, and Jean Jacques Rousseau contended that moral freedom demands social equality and the socialization of private property. Moral freedom itself meant knowing ourselves and being in control of our desires and passions.

Malcolm X thought spiritual freedom was the basis of political freedom.
Agreed on moral equality, but socialism doesn’t work in a society with limited resources and above the tribal/village level….meaning above a level where citizens can easily participate on politics such as a town hall.
 
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...Religious-Typology-Quiz&p=5503543#post5503543

I've made it a point to learn about the various conceptions of human freedom from a range of world philosophical and religious traditions. I see no harm in opening my mind to the long debate about the nature of liberation.

If you want to believe the epitomy of human freedom is just the absence of contraints on one's actions, that's fine.

I honestly don't think you have a definition of Freedom. You have never provided one. And if you look at the dictionary (all dictionaries) you will see that absence of constraints is pretty much the primary definition.

What does the WORD mean to you? Not the philosophical implications, but the WORD ITSELF. What does it mean? It has to have a meaning in order of you to talk about it. What is its meaning?
 
Let's read Ephesians in the NIV so we can place it into better context:

26 “In your anger do not sin”[d]: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, 27 and do not give the devil a foothold.

This is a better translation of that verse, basically it tells you not to go to bed angry.

It is even better in context if you start at the beginning (Same chapter 4):

2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.
Everything is better in context. About 90% of human conflict is based upon a miscommunication and a major part of that is people lacking context.
 
If freedom just means the absence of restraint on one's actions, one could be free to sit in front of the TV all day, mentally atrophy, and live a life of sloth, gluttony, and sin.

That is no sentient person's idea of freedom, and it is in fact a type of slavery. Slavery to ignorance, vice, sin, and desire
Correct and, if given the chance, that would be exactly what some people would do. e.g. The Welfare State.

Consider a society with unlimited resources and unlimited energy (e.g. Mr. Fusion and Star Trek replicators). With such tech, mankind would reach for the stars….but back on Earth, there would be those who just sit in their room, play the guitar and smoke pot.

If they are forced to work for their keep, even though it’s not necessary for them to do so, is that robbing them of their freedom? To force an adult to do something for their own good…as determined by committee? Is that freedom or oppression?
 
Agreed on moral equality, but socialism doesn’t work in a society with limited resources and above the tribal/village level….meaning above a level where citizens can easily participate on politics such as a town hall.

I don't think Roseau was right about everything. Obviously, the sentient person should consider multiple perspectives. I think John Locke was probably right that the chance to own property was a key part of freedom's formulation
 
Last edited:
Back
Top