Should I do as I please? y:-/

[Storyteller]

Okay, we just interpret please and choose differently.

[RickD]

Okay, we just interpret please and choose differently.

But the idiom, "do/live as I please" means the same thing as, "do/live as I choose".

[RickD]

An idiom as a complete thought, doesn't necessarily have the same meaning as if you took each word in the idiom, and just put their definitions together.

Comprende?

[Nessa]

Nessa wrote:

If we are free to live as we please then that includes the choice to live for ourselves, doesn't it?

I don't see Paul in the NT seeing himself as a free man. If he was more free, maybe he wouldnt have been so tortured by recognising his sinfulness.

I think we are free in the sense that God wont stop us from sinning, BUT if we actually see ourselves as free to do whatever we want then I believe we not are truly living for Christ.

Again, living as we please, just means doing whatever we choose to do. We are free to do what we choose.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't do what's right. I'm just saying that we are as free to do as we choose, as an atheist is.

Free to live as we please, just means we are free to make choices. It's an idiom.

Just because we are free to choose, that doesn't mean we shouldn't choose what's good.

When we become a Christian we give up our freedom...kinda like giving up your freedom when you get married...uh, wait.. I mean...

I don't see myself as free to do certain things. And I actually think having an attitude of 'being free to do whatever' can be dangerous cos it appeals to the flesh.

Were adam and eve free to eat the apple? No, they werent. But they chose to do it anyway.

God didnt give them the freedom to eat the apple. He actually restricted their freedom by saying eat off any other tree but this one.

[RickD]

Nessa wrote:

If we are free to live as we please then that includes the choice to live for ourselves, doesn't it?

I don't see Paul in the NT seeing himself as a free man. If he was more free, maybe he wouldnt have been so tortured by recognising his sinfulness.

I think we are free in the sense that God wont stop us from sinning, BUT if we actually see ourselves as free to do whatever we want then I believe we not are truly living for Christ.

Again, living as we please, just means doing whatever we choose to do. We are free to do what we choose.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't do what's right. I'm just saying that we are as free to do as we choose, as an atheist is.

Free to live as we please, just means we are free to make choices. It's an idiom.

Just because we are free to choose, that doesn't mean we shouldn't choose what's good.

When we become a Christian we give up our freedom...kinda like giving up your freedom when you get married...uh, wait.. I mean...

I don't see myself as free to do certain things. And I actually think having an attitude of 'being free to do whatever' can be dangerous cos it appeals to the flesh.

Were adam and eve free to eat the apple? No, they werent. But they chose to do it anyway.

God didnt give them the freedom to eat the apple. He actually restricted their freedom by saying eat off any other tree but this one.

Maybe someone else can try to explain it to you, because I'm just not explaining it well enough for you to understand.

Adam and Eve were free to choose to eat the apple. God gave them the freedom to choose to eat it, or not eat it.

You are free to do those certain things that you think you aren't free to do. What I'm not saying is that you should do them. Having the freedom to choose, doesn't mean we still shouldn't choose good.

But that doesn't mean that God took away your freedom to make choices.

[Nessa]

Nessa wrote:

If we are free to live as we please then that includes the choice to live for ourselves, doesn't it?

I don't see Paul in the NT seeing himself as a free man. If he was more free, maybe he wouldnt have been so tortured by recognising his sinfulness.

I think we are free in the sense that God wont stop us from sinning, BUT if we actually see ourselves as free to do whatever we want then I believe we not are truly living for Christ.

Again, living as we please, just means doing whatever we choose to do. We are free to do what we choose.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't do what's right. I'm just saying that we are as free to do as we choose, as an atheist is.

Free to live as we please, just means we are free to make choices. It's an idiom.

Just because we are free to choose, that doesn't mean we shouldn't choose what's good.

When we become a Christian we give up our freedom...kinda like giving up your freedom when you get married...uh, wait.. I mean...

I don't see myself as free to do certain things. And I actually think having an attitude of 'being free to do whatever' can be dangerous cos it appeals to the flesh.

Were adam and eve free to eat the apple? No, they werent. But they chose to do it anyway.

God didnt give them the freedom to eat the apple. He actually restricted their freedom by saying eat off any other tree but this one.

Maybe someone else can try to explain it to you, because I'm just not explaining it well enough for you to understand.

Adam and Eve were free to choose to eat the apple. God gave them the freedom to choose to eat it, or not eat it.

You are free to do those certain things that you think you aren't free to do. What I'm not saying is that you should do them. Having the freedom to choose, doesn't mean we still shouldn't choose good.

But that doesn't mean that God took away your freedom to make choices.

On one hand they were 'free' to make the choice to eat the apple but on the other hand they werent free to do it though they could. I think there is a difference.

I mean when you get married, does your sense of freedom change? You can still make all the same choices as you would being single but if you dont understand that your freedom has changed then it wont work the way God intended it too.

And as Christians, if we dont understand that when we become a christian our freedom changes then its not gonna work the way God intended it too either.

I don't believe we are 'free' as atheists are 'free'. Just like a married person is not free as a single person is.

[RickD]

nessa wrote:

On one hand they were 'free' to make the choice to eat the apple but on the other hand they werent free to do it though they could. I think there is a difference.

You can't be free and not free at the same time.

Just like you can't be female and not female.

I mean when you get married, does your sense of freedom change? You can still make all the same choices as you would being single but if you dont understand that your freedom has changed then it wont work the way God intended it too.

Now I'm confused.

There's that free/not free contradiction again.

And as Christians, if we dont understand that when we become a christian our freedom changes then its not gonna work the way God intended it too either.

I don't believe we are 'free' as atheists are 'free'. Just like a married person is not free as a single person is.

Again, the idiom, "free to live as I please" doesn't have different meanings for atheists and Christians. The idiom has one definition.

answer these two questions:

1) can an atheist choose to do something, or choose not to do something?

2) can a Christian choose to do something, or choose not to do something?

If your answer is yes to both, then you understand what the idiom, "free to live as I please" means.

[B. W.]

Question:

What does freedom mean to you?
-
-
-

[Nessa]

Question:

What does freedom mean to you?
-
-
-

Great question.

To me freedom can mean permission.
I don't believe God gave adam and eve permission to eat that apple but they had the freedom (ability) to choose to do it and then do it. I guess because I see freedom as meaning several things that it sounds contradictory

Also freedom to me means rights. Which is what I was getting at with the marriage example. When you get married you give up certain rights as a single person to become one with your spouse. Paul mentions it is also better to be unmarried in that we have more freedom to serve Christ.

When you become a Christian, I believe you give up your rights to live for yourself and to live for Christ instead. That doesn't mean we won't fail. But it does mean a shift in freedom like marriage should have.

An atheist is not bound to give up any rights to a God, so is able to live for themselves as they please if they choose to do so.

[RickD]

Question:

What does freedom mean to you?
-
-
-

Great question.

To me freedom can mean permission.
I don't believe God gave adam and eve permission to eat that apple but they had the freedom (ability) to choose to do it and then do it. I guess because I see freedom as meaning several things that it sounds contradictory

Also freedom to me means rights. Which is what I was getting at with the marriage example. When you get married you give up certain rights as a single person to become one with your spouse. Paul mentions it is also better to be unmarried in that we have more freedom to serve Christ.

When you become a Christian, I believe you give up your rights to live for yourself and to live for Christ instead. That doesn't mean we won't fail. But it does mean a shift in freedom in marriage does.

An atheist is not bound to give up any rights to a God, so is able to live for themselves as they please if they choose to do so.

[Kenny]

Ken?

I'd love to see what you'd be capable of if you found God

Cute! (LOL)

K

[Kenny]

If we believe there is no God, then, yes, ultimately we are free to live as we please. And, well, why shouldn't we? If we live in a 'good' way, then who is defining that it is 'good'. If we live in a 'bad' way then who is defining it is 'bad'? Depends who you ask really

I believe this is about whether you are a moral person or not. In a previous post I defined morality as the ability to understand the consequences of actions and how such actions affect your neighbor. It starts from the position of what I believe to be harmful to your neighbor is bad, and what I believe to be helpful to your neighbor is good.

IMO any person who must receive instructions from God in order to live a moral life is not being moral, he is being obedient.
Such a person is nothing more than an immoral person who has become good at following instructions.
I am better than that; and I am guessing you guys are as well whether you realize it or not.

Ken

[RickD]

If we believe there is no God, then, yes, ultimately we are free to live as we please. And, well, why shouldn't we? If we live in a 'good' way, then who is defining that it is 'good'. If we live in a 'bad' way then who is defining it is 'bad'? Depends who you ask really

I believe this is about whether you are a moral person or not. In a previous post I defined morality as the ability to understand the consequences of actions and how such actions affect your neighbor. It starts from the position of what I believe to be harmful to your neighbor is bad, and what I believe to be helpful to your neighbor is good.

IMO any person who must receive instructions from God in order to live a moral life is not being moral, he is being obedient.
Such a person is nothing more than an immoral person who has become good at following instructions.
I am better than that; and I am guessing you guys are as well whether you realize it or not.

Ken

And with that said, I think I'll go kick my dog.

[Nicki]

Question:

What does freedom mean to you?
-
-
-

Great question.

To me freedom can mean permission.
I don't believe God gave adam and eve permission to eat that apple but they had the freedom (ability) to choose to do it and then do it. I guess because I see freedom as meaning several things that it sounds contradictory

Also freedom to me means rights. Which is what I was getting at with the marriage example. When you get married you give up certain rights as a single person to become one with your spouse. Paul mentions it is also better to be unmarried in that we have more freedom to serve Christ.

When you become a Christian, I believe you give up your rights to live for yourself and to live for Christ instead. That doesn't mean we won't fail. But it does mean a shift in freedom in marriage does.

An atheist is not bound to give up any rights to a God, so is able to live for themselves as they please if they choose to do so.

No need to bang your head on a brick wall; she's right in a way. Do you have the freedom to kill someone? In a way you do, because if you have the ability to do it there's probably nothing stopping you in practical terms; but in another way your freedom is probably limited by your knowledge of right and wrong and your fear of going to jail. Of course we technically have the freedom to do as we please as long as we're able, but the question was whether we should.

[Nicki]

Well, if I didn't believe in God, seriously believed when I died that was it, I'd sure do more as I please, and likely to my detriment. Perhaps that shows a character flaw, really I see such as being pragmatic. What is useful and beneficial to me, that is what I'd do and pursue. Why, I think I'd be a quite scary person to be around.

Hmm. But you think so deeply about things. Would you really be that self-centred?

Self-centred? Of course, it'd be my purpose in life to be that way.
I'm an either all-in person, or all-out. If I feel I'd do something half-assed, then I'd just not do it at all.
So then, if I really believed God didn't exist, then I'd live life accordingly.

Think about it, what's it matter to be like Hitler or Mother Teresa if the end is all the same?
Should I pretend there is some half-assed meaning to being giving to others? No, such are evolutionary vestiges to be shaken off, I'm not going to believe a lie born in my nature like things really matter. What matters, is what matters to me, and that is what gives me the most enjoyment in the only life I'll have.

No it just so might happen, my self-centredness aligns with being nice to someone. Perhaps it makes me feel good. It might align with not killing someone, and being more political to get my way. It might involve maiming someone who has threatened me, perhaps even demanding things from people. Certainly if I feel crossed, I'd ensure the person never even thought of doing such again. My life is mine and about me, and when you fully believe it, that's scary.

Working in early childhood education and care I see social morality reflected in the Australian Early Years Learning Framework, which has been around for a few years now. One of the five learning outcomes is 'children are connected with and contribute to their world', which involves considering others, being aware of fairness and having empathy. Developing these qualities in children is obviously seen as contributing to a good society - nearly everyone wants the next generation to be responsible citizens and not crims, thugs and hoons.

Sure they do, because we all have a moral nature that can intuit right and wrong. It's not relevant though to me. Like I say, I'm not one to be half-assed. If I seriously believe I was going to die, then I'd use to my advantage those who see meaning to such values. And in reality, just because one isn't a crim, doesn't mean they accept -- there are very manipulative people in the world who seem nice and charismatic, but they're simply being more tactful and beneath it all are the most morally bankrupt and self-centred people you'll ever know.

I suppose I could be quite different as well if I didn't believe in God. But I care far too much about what other people think of me to be a horrible person - and there's a limit to how horrible you can be without other people knowing. Along with that, although I'm happy with my own company in general, when I do interact with others I hate getting along badly with them - even just feeling they're annoyed with me. So while I do attribute my wanting to be caring to others partly to being a Christian, I think it's also because I want to seem like a nice person. Being rich (or whatever your aim in life would be as a self-centred person) but disliked by many people wouldn't appeal to me at all.