How can God accomplish His Purposes through sinful actions of human beings and still be holy, just and good?
Answer this question to the best of your ability. And the following questions will lead into the next chapter:
Is freedom the same as "liberty"?
Is there any difference between freedom and "licence"?
Are there different kinds of freedom?
Is freedom compatible with authority?
Is freedom equal for all people?
????? Truth ???????
??????? Truth ?????
Is freedom the same as "liberty"?
Is there any difference between freedom and "licence"?
Are there different kinds of freedom?
Is freedom compatible with authority?
Is freedom equal for all people?
????? Truth ???????
??????? Truth ?????
1 comments:
These are really great questions, by the way. This must be some book. :)
I'm going to take this all as one big question.
As freedom is a concept, something that cannot really be seen or touched in the way that, say, a chair or an apple can be touched, it, like other concepts, such as love or justice, is open to interpretation. I think that freedom in general is the open ability to do something...on paper. Take, for example, the freedom of speech. I am free to say what I want to, but I am not as free as, say, Bill Gates. Bill Gates has tons of money and is able to produce television ads, billboards, whatever he wants, in order to get what he has to say out to the masses. True, I have a blog and, therefore, am able in some respects to reach a bigger audience than some people, but with money comes authority and with authority comes a louder voice. As I am decidedly poorer than Bill Gates, he has more authority and can, in essence, shout louder than I can. He will obviously reach more people and will, in the end, get more people to do what he wants than I'll ever be able to.
So, no, freedom is not equal for all people. Should it be? I say yes. I say that I should be just as free to speak and to influence people as Bill Gates, who has no real authority to make decisions regarding things like education other than his ability to throw money at things. I may have better ideas than he has (in fact, considering he supports charter schools, the privatization of education, and the deunionization of teachers, I'd say I DO have better ideas than he has), but his ideas will carry the day. This shouldn't be the case but, unfortunately, it is.
Freedom from person to person, state to state, and country to country differs depending on beliefs, laws, familial and societal restraints, and other outside factors. You and I both have the freedom to assemble in a protest, but one or the other of us may not feel inclined to do so (let's just say that it's me, for the sake of argument). I therefore am self-imposing restrictions on myself. Do they conflict with my freedoms? Yes, but it is my choice and is, in essence, still part of my freedom. In other countries, however, this is not the case. Some leaders restrict or outright forbid freedom of speech, assembly, etc., and the people of these countries are forced, by necessity, to restrict themselves. This is NOT part of their freedom.
Even in the United States we've seen this. The passage of the Patriot Act led to crackdowns on peaceful assemblies all over the country. I personally know someone who was arrested for exercising his right to assemble. For those of us who are politically inclined, these were scary times. We still, on paper, had freedom of assembly, but we were not unrestricted in our access to this freedom.
I think a question that isn't above, but probably should be is: Is freedom the same as "a right?" Do we have a right to our freedoms or can they be taken away? I know that I have my opinion on the matter, but I'm curious as to what you think, so I won't take up any more space in your comment section for the time being.
Post a Comment