[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bekenn [/i]
[B]Without the freedom to screw up, they'd have no freedom to choose [i]not[/i] to screw up.[/B][/QUOTE]
Who said that the citizens of Sodom had "screwed up"? (Pardon the pun.) I expect they were having a great time until God came along.
Anyway, "freedom" in conjunction with "religion" is tortology. One cannot have true freedom in a belief system that is based on rules. Moses himself said "There is no freedom without the law." Therefore, can you truely be free?
Herein lies another interesting philosphical discussuion. What is trure freedom? Is it doing what you want, when you want, or is it living by a set of civil rules.
Doing what you want, when you want will give a form of freedom, but its a bit of a false freedom. If everyone just did what ever, society would break down. No longer would we have readily available, those basic items that are necessary for life, food, shelter, health care. At that point in time you may have complete personal freedom, but you will not be free from want of the basic needs of life or free from fear.
On the other hand, I believe true freedom, is being able to establish the rules by which you live. As you pointed out, Moses said "There can be no freedom without the law"
Freedom is not being able to drive as fast as you want, that is recklessness. Freedom is not having to worry that some other individual is going to be drive as fast as they want.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Freejack [/i]
[B]Doing what you want, when you want will give a form of freedom, but its a bit of a false freedom. If everyone just did what ever, society would break down. [/B][/QUOTE]
It is possible to have freedom in a society with rules, although it is not "complete" freedom.
Morality and social conscience teaches the majority of us that doing things that will harm other people or damage society is wrong. (Creating a negative emotional reaction, which teaches us not to do it.)
The acts we are free to commit are in the most cases, ones that are morally right. We have determined that we are not free to commit other acts because they are morally wrong.
Because of this, do we REALLY want to be truely free?
According to Durkheim, this can only be achieved with a total loss of morals which would result in the break-down of society and total chaos. (Murder, raping, pillaging, etc.)
I personally, am content in the society I live in. I may not be totally "free", but I consider myself to be free enough to enjoy my life. Isn't that enough for everybody?
IMO: Christianity enforces a bunch of laws that restricts the freedom we have in society, with dogma such as the Seven Deadly Sns and other scripture.
This is what I don't like about organized religion with rules. We're doing fine as it is, why do we need any more?
Well, there's a difference between the kind of freedom you're talking about and the kind of freedom I'm talking about. When I say "freedom," I mean the ability to make choices and accept the conseqeunces. Everyone has that kind of freedom.
You're talking about the ability to make choices without consequence, which is something entirely different.
God grants every human the freedom to do, say, or think anything that a person's mind and body are capable of. He doesn't choose when and how our arms and legs move; we do that. Likewise, he doesn't control our thoughts, or prevent us from inflicting or receiving harm.
But he also doesn't spare us from the consequences of our actions.
It is freedom of thought and action, the very ability to [i]make a choice[/i], that allows for the presence of good in the world. One man choosing to sacrifice his life that another may live is good; the same sacrifice, forced upon the man without the power of choice, is not.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by whitestar90 [/i]
[B]One could say where did the laws originally come from;) [/B][/QUOTE]
Religion.
Yes, religious teachings and morald have formed the basis of a functional, civillized society. But only the BIG ones concerning property, life and death.
What about all of the other smaller morals that people ignore all the time? (Sloth, gluttony, lust, temperence at all that?) IMO, we don't need them.
Regards,
Morden
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
The smaller ones are a personal thing. Particularly things like lust, where restricting that means restricting thought.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]The smaller ones are a personal thing. Particularly things like lust, where restricting that means restricting thought. [/B][/QUOTE]
Exactly.
I personally am not going to have my harmless Friday-night trips down the pub or vain attempts to attract the opposite sex curtailed by a set of religious regulations.
Based on the actions of the Romans during the early days of Christianity, we're not all that big on pagans. :D
Okay, on a more serious note, I believe that in general that Organized Religion is a very positive force in the sense that it can serve as a gathering point for peoples of similar faiths. I do believe that that it is meant to be the leader of trying to provide examples of how to lead a good and moral lifestyle. Its only true failing is that while it is to provide a much-needed service to everyone, it is nontheless an institution created by man, and since it is created by man, it is subject to the same flaws as man, thus easily corruptible.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Admiral Andy [/i]
[B]Okay, on a more serious note, I believe that in general that Organized Religion is a very positive force in the sense that it can serve as a gathering point for peoples of similar faiths.[/B][/QUOTE]
I take exactly the opposite view.
Having a large collection of people who's actions are to some extent determined by a belief system based on faith, not physical fact, is potentially dangerous.
Guarenteed, the majority of religious people are productive members of society who are not TOTALLY controlled by their faith, but events throughout history have shown us that orginized religion is a highly destructive force. (From the Crusades to September 11th 2001.)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Morden279 [/i]
[B]I take exactly the opposite view.
Having a large collection of people who's actions are to some extent determined by a belief system based on faith, not physical fact, is potentially dangerous.[/B][/QUOTE]
Ah, ah, but no belief system can be based solely on physical fact. Consider capitalism, that relies on faith that people won't steal and break the rules. Or democracy, that relies on faith that more than half of the people will know what is best for them. And don't say political and economic systems haven't resulted in murder and wrong doing.
It's like I always say: if it weren't for religion, all of our religious extremists would be political and economic extremists. Instead of people blowing themselves up for Allah, we'd have people blowing themselves up for Adam Smith and Mao.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]So anyway, I think the fall of Londo is probably the most heartfelt. He wanted to achieve so much and he felt that the cost was worth anything. When he realized he got everything he ever asked for, he knew the cost was everything he held dear. His rise to Emperor cost him the only thing he ever really loved, Centauri itself. [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree. When he realized what would be the cost it was too late to stop it.
Like Kosh said once:
[I]The avalanche has already started.
It is too late for the pebbles to vote.[/I]
If you watch all through the second season episodes (sorry, cant give specific ones atm), Londo begins to realize his ambitions have very high, moral price tags. The last 3 or 4 episodes are even more telltale.
At one point, Vir attempts to convince Londo to stop what he's doing and change course.
Londo replys "This is the path I've chosen, I must follow it to the end."
After the mass driver attack on Narn homeworld, you can see it in his face and behaviors. He's totally different than he was.
I don't believe he was evil. You can plainly see he felt pain in dealing with the consequences of his decisions. But he consistently followed his chosen path...blind ambition anyone?
[quote]As he said also in one of those episodes the he had no choice. I don't think blnd ambition so much as a sense of purpose to follow that path no matter oh bad it got for him or those affected by his actions and decisions.
[/quote]
Oh, he had plenty of choice. He could have not asked Morden to arrange the destruction of the Narn colony in The Coming Of Shadows. He could have refused to get Morden's help in defending the supply post in Coming of Shadows. Sure, once he put himself in with Refa, I imagine that backing out would have ended up in his death or blacklisting among the other Centauri (similar to what almost happened to Urza), but he still made all the wrong choices. Some willingly, others not so much so.
Comments
[B]Without the freedom to screw up, they'd have no freedom to choose [i]not[/i] to screw up.[/B][/QUOTE]
Who said that the citizens of Sodom had "screwed up"? (Pardon the pun.) I expect they were having a great time until God came along.
Anyway, "freedom" in conjunction with "religion" is tortology. One cannot have true freedom in a belief system that is based on rules. Moses himself said "There is no freedom without the law." Therefore, can you truely be free?
Regards,
Morden
Doing what you want, when you want will give a form of freedom, but its a bit of a false freedom. If everyone just did what ever, society would break down. No longer would we have readily available, those basic items that are necessary for life, food, shelter, health care. At that point in time you may have complete personal freedom, but you will not be free from want of the basic needs of life or free from fear.
On the other hand, I believe true freedom, is being able to establish the rules by which you live. As you pointed out, Moses said "There can be no freedom without the law"
Freedom is not being able to drive as fast as you want, that is recklessness. Freedom is not having to worry that some other individual is going to be drive as fast as they want.
Jake
[B]Doing what you want, when you want will give a form of freedom, but its a bit of a false freedom. If everyone just did what ever, society would break down. [/B][/QUOTE]
It is possible to have freedom in a society with rules, although it is not "complete" freedom.
Morality and social conscience teaches the majority of us that doing things that will harm other people or damage society is wrong. (Creating a negative emotional reaction, which teaches us not to do it.)
The acts we are free to commit are in the most cases, ones that are morally right. We have determined that we are not free to commit other acts because they are morally wrong.
Because of this, do we REALLY want to be truely free?
According to Durkheim, this can only be achieved with a total loss of morals which would result in the break-down of society and total chaos. (Murder, raping, pillaging, etc.)
I personally, am content in the society I live in. I may not be totally "free", but I consider myself to be free enough to enjoy my life. Isn't that enough for everybody?
IMO: Christianity enforces a bunch of laws that restricts the freedom we have in society, with dogma such as the Seven Deadly Sns and other scripture.
This is what I don't like about organized religion with rules. We're doing fine as it is, why do we need any more?
Regards,
Morden
You're talking about the ability to make choices without consequence, which is something entirely different.
God grants every human the freedom to do, say, or think anything that a person's mind and body are capable of. He doesn't choose when and how our arms and legs move; we do that. Likewise, he doesn't control our thoughts, or prevent us from inflicting or receiving harm.
But he also doesn't spare us from the consequences of our actions.
It is freedom of thought and action, the very ability to [i]make a choice[/i], that allows for the presence of good in the world. One man choosing to sacrifice his life that another may live is good; the same sacrifice, forced upon the man without the power of choice, is not.
[B]One could say where did the laws originally come from;) [/B][/QUOTE]
Religion.
Yes, religious teachings and morald have formed the basis of a functional, civillized society. But only the BIG ones concerning property, life and death.
What about all of the other smaller morals that people ignore all the time? (Sloth, gluttony, lust, temperence at all that?) IMO, we don't need them.
Regards,
Morden
[B]The smaller ones are a personal thing. Particularly things like lust, where restricting that means restricting thought. [/B][/QUOTE]
Exactly.
I personally am not going to have my harmless Friday-night trips down the pub or vain attempts to attract the opposite sex curtailed by a set of religious regulations.
Regards,
Morden
Okay, on a more serious note, I believe that in general that Organized Religion is a very positive force in the sense that it can serve as a gathering point for peoples of similar faiths. I do believe that that it is meant to be the leader of trying to provide examples of how to lead a good and moral lifestyle. Its only true failing is that while it is to provide a much-needed service to everyone, it is nontheless an institution created by man, and since it is created by man, it is subject to the same flaws as man, thus easily corruptible.
[B]Okay, on a more serious note, I believe that in general that Organized Religion is a very positive force in the sense that it can serve as a gathering point for peoples of similar faiths.[/B][/QUOTE]
I take exactly the opposite view.
Having a large collection of people who's actions are to some extent determined by a belief system based on faith, not physical fact, is potentially dangerous.
Guarenteed, the majority of religious people are productive members of society who are not TOTALLY controlled by their faith, but events throughout history have shown us that orginized religion is a highly destructive force. (From the Crusades to September 11th 2001.)
Regards,
Morden
[B]I take exactly the opposite view.
Having a large collection of people who's actions are to some extent determined by a belief system based on faith, not physical fact, is potentially dangerous.[/B][/QUOTE]
Ah, ah, but no belief system can be based solely on physical fact. Consider capitalism, that relies on faith that people won't steal and break the rules. Or democracy, that relies on faith that more than half of the people will know what is best for them. And don't say political and economic systems haven't resulted in murder and wrong doing.
It's like I always say: if it weren't for religion, all of our religious extremists would be political and economic extremists. Instead of people blowing themselves up for Allah, we'd have people blowing themselves up for Adam Smith and Mao.
[B]So anyway, I think the fall of Londo is probably the most heartfelt. He wanted to achieve so much and he felt that the cost was worth anything. When he realized he got everything he ever asked for, he knew the cost was everything he held dear. His rise to Emperor cost him the only thing he ever really loved, Centauri itself. [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree. When he realized what would be the cost it was too late to stop it.
Like Kosh said once:
[I]The avalanche has already started.
It is too late for the pebbles to vote.[/I]
At one point, Vir attempts to convince Londo to stop what he's doing and change course.
Londo replys "This is the path I've chosen, I must follow it to the end."
After the mass driver attack on Narn homeworld, you can see it in his face and behaviors. He's totally different than he was.
I don't believe he was evil. You can plainly see he felt pain in dealing with the consequences of his decisions. But he consistently followed his chosen path...blind ambition anyone?
[/quote]
Oh, he had plenty of choice. He could have not asked Morden to arrange the destruction of the Narn colony in The Coming Of Shadows. He could have refused to get Morden's help in defending the supply post in Coming of Shadows. Sure, once he put himself in with Refa, I imagine that backing out would have ended up in his death or blacklisting among the other Centauri (similar to what almost happened to Urza), but he still made all the wrong choices. Some willingly, others not so much so.