Lady liberty is holding what book in her hand?

RexRed, have you read any of the social contract theory writers? They take very different approaches, but they all try to reconcile just that: law and liberty. So before you speculate any further, do some reading on the topic.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Please go back and reread the topic... starting at page one...

I have read the whole thread, thank you.

RexRed wrote:

How do we reconcile the "law of liberty"?

Isn't that an oxymoron?

For law impedes absolute liberty.

What has this "law of liberty" that you have conjured up, which only you know what you mean by it, to do with the Statue of Liberty?

And yes, I did read the whole thread. And we have established, best as we could, that there was no mention made of anything like the Christian "Law of Liberty" that you conjure up, by anyone connected to commissioning or creating the statue.

As far as this thread has shown, there is no connection between the Christian-infused "Law of Liberty" you are talking about and the actual Statue, outside your head. All the elements you have referred to as connotating Christian references - the crown, its spikes, the tablet, the direction in which the statue faces - for all these things there is written documentation what the creators were referring to, which was linked to here. They explicited what the statue's features referred to, tablet and all, and it was not the Bible, not God, and not any kind of Christian "Law of Liberty" that you are nebulously referring to, without actually defining or sourcing it.

How can you say that "It has been established it is a tablet [..] that contains the "law of liberty" FROM THE BIBLE" when nothing that was either written on the tablet, or about the tablet, by those who made the statue, refers to any such thing?

0 Replies

As for the philosophical question:

RexRed wrote:

How do we reconcile the "law of liberty"?

Isn't that an oxymoron?

For law impedes absolute liberty.

There is no liberty without law.

And that, too, is a notion that Christians have developed their way, and those of other religions as well as secular philosophers have each developed in other ways. The Bible hardly has an exclusionary claim to the origin of such wisdoms.

0 Replies

Can we give RR a place to land?

I dunno, I landed by myself, as have others here.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

As for the philosophical question:

RexRed wrote:
How do we reconcile the "law of liberty"?

Isn't that an oxymoron?

For law impedes absolute liberty.

There is no liberty without law.

And that, too, is a notion that Christians have developed their way, and those of other religions as well as secular philosophers have each developed in other ways. The Bible hardly has an exclusionary claim to the origin of such wisdoms.

There can be no liberty with law... For with law then liberty becomes a mandate and is no longer liberty... It is like being free but still in jail.

The law must be completely abolished in order for liberty to flourish. It is only through liberty that God can be love out of the pureness of heart. To to mandate faith is not faith but bondage to a stipulation imposed rather than a choice made out of true desire for God..

John 8:36
If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

2 Peter 2:19
While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. 20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Galatians 5:1
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

RexRed, have you read any of the social contract theory writers? They take very different approaches, but they all try to reconcile just that: law and liberty. So before you speculate any further, do some reading on the topic.

Why not read God's word first regarding the subject of liberty for the answers instead of reading "around" it and then maybe consulting it?

0 Replies

Romans 3:20
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

0 Replies

People become freed from the law but still choose to remain in their prisions.

The shackles come off and the prison doors are unlocked and opened wide yet they choose to remain in their cells and torment themselves over the old nature of sin consciousness. They also impose this sin consciousness upon others. This is what I detest most about "religion" which is not necessarily truth. I am sure most of you will agree with me on at least that point...

So we are not so far apart as you have generally assumed.

Ephesians 4:8
Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men [and women].

0 Replies

So the law of liberty is tied to the faith of Jesus Christ... For the law of liberty cannot be realized without Christ Jesus in the heart.

0 Replies

You can see that this subject is not as simple as it appears on the surface...

Finally you all seem to be giving it some serious thought.

There is a clear Biblical distinction between man and woman's judgment today and God's judgment or rewards..

For in law there is judgment and in liberty there are only rewards...

Romans 5:9
Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath [judgment] through him!

Comment: For we are in the body of Christ and being in the body of Christ we were crucified with Christ, already judged with Christ we were raised with Christ and thought we live on this earth we are already seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 2:6
And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

Galatians 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Romans 8:1
Therefore, there is now no condemnation [judgment] for those who are in Christ Jesus,

Comment: For without law there is not judgment or transgression of law.

Humans may still judge people by law but God does not judge those with Christ in them.

For it is the "holy" spirit in us and this spirit cannot be corrupted by you and I no matter how hard we sin. But knowing this unconditional love that the Father has shown toward us it behooves us to live in moderation and to mirror this same love toward others... In this the love of God is manifested through us...

1Peter 1:23
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible [seed], by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Comment: I do not pretend to know all there is about this law of liberty but maybe with your help we can discover it's true essence and revive this truth for generations who fervently seek the liberation sanctioned only by the one true God and the word of truth...

So the tablets do represent the law and the lady represents liberty and the word of God is the ONLY way to this law of liberty.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

0 Replies

Two excerpts from the Declaration Of Independence... July 4, 1776

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

One of these days I may open up and let you all in....

Oh, gawd. You mean you haven't already opened up?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

As for the philosophical question:

RexRed wrote:
How do we reconcile the "law of liberty"?

Isn't that an oxymoron?

For law impedes absolute liberty.

There is no liberty without law.
Wow, this is one of the most retarded statements ive ever heard.
there is no control without law, laws only serve to keep society flowing smoothly in the environment of violence and poverty created by humanity.
absolutely untrue statement.animals are completely free, yet they have no laws, how do you counter this?(are laws of nature included in this? i am assuming you mean laws of man only)

And that, too, is a notion that Christians have developed their way, and those of other religions as well as secular philosophers have each developed in other ways. The Bible hardly has an exclusionary claim to the origin of such wisdoms.

sidenote, im not agreeing with rex

0 Replies

u claim to be a strict follower of the Christian religion and bible and also claim to be a homosexual. why should we listen to anything a person bound for the eterenal flames of hell.... according to the religion you profess, has to say?

0 Replies

i lol'd

0 Replies

LAWS OF NATURE is a term... again, dates all the way back to stoicism, through natural rights philosophy of enlightenment to human rights theories... So I don't know what are you doing all that highlighting for, RexRed. As I said before, you should first read literature that you're referring to - Declaration wasn't writting on a green meadow. It has foundations in this literature. Go read it first. Social contract theories. I suggested this to you before.

Ogionik, ditto. Brief look at social contracts theories (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau...) will shed some light into what is being talked about.

wikipedia wrote:

State of nature & social contract
According to Hobbes' and canonical theory, the essence is as follows: Without society, we would live in a state of nature, where we each have unlimited natural freedoms. The downside of this general autonomy is that it includes the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to harm all who threaten one's own self-preservation; there are no positive rights, only laws of nature and an endless "war of all against all" (Bellum omnium contra omnes, Hobbes 1651). In other words, anyone in the state of nature can do anything he likes; but this also means that anyone can do anything he likes to anyone else. To avoid this, we jointly agree to a social contract by which we each gain civil rights in return for subjecting ourselves to civil law or to political authority. In Hobbes' formulation, the sovereign power is not a party of the contract but instead the sovereign is its creation, and so is not bound by it.

Alternatively, some have argued that we gain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to respect and defend the rights of others, giving up some freedoms to do so; this alternative formulation of the duty arising from the social contract is often identified with militia, or defense activity.

so, you see, according to hobbes, there is "wild freedom" and then there is "true freedom" - one where your life is protected from others. Others have different takes on it.... but law and liberty are closely connected in the mind of these authors.

Since John Lock is the 'father of liberalism' - and this liberalism doesn't mean anything that is understood under liberalism in America today but rather the original philosophical thought, I strongly recommend turning to him to understand what Laws of nature - as you like to highlitght - were understood as at the time.

Once again. THIS IS NOT GUESSWORK! Do your homework first.

0 Replies

i have to disagree, that is like saying "privilege" is a right, just because everyone else is subject to rules and have the same privileges.

might as well say call their "true freedom" by its real definition

"protection from others through subjugation of personal freedoms"
which happens to not be freedom at all. just protection.

am i right or wrong? it seems people can redefine words through certain circumstances and their own personal views. What keeps a being from protecting itself in wild freedom ?

0 Replies

have you read leviathan?

if yes, then we can talk.
PS: you might like rousseau better than hobbes. but still, since these concepts stem from that literature, i find it futile to discuss it just on the basis of assumptions, guesses and feelings.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

RexRed wrote:
One of these days I may open up and let you all in....

Oh, gawd. You mean you haven't already opened up?

Hell no... and I don't plan to right off.

0 Replies

OGIONIK wrote:

nimh wrote:
As for the philosophical question:

RexRed wrote:
How do we reconcile the "law of liberty"?

Isn't that an oxymoron?

For law impedes absolute liberty.

There is no liberty without law.
Wow, this is one of the most retarded statements ive ever heard.
there is no control without law, laws only serve to keep society flowing smoothly in the environment of violence and poverty created by humanity.
absolutely untrue statement.animals are completely free, yet they have no laws, how do you counter this?(are laws of nature included in this? i am assuming you mean laws of man only)

And that, too, is a notion that Christians have developed their way, and those of other religions as well as secular philosophers have each developed in other ways. The Bible hardly has an exclusionary claim to the origin of such wisdoms.

sidenote, im not agreeing with rex

In a way you are, agreeing with me that is...

But I am not talking about law from a perspective of human (man's/woman's) judgment but laws from a perspective of God's judgment... big difference...

God (as perceived in the old testament) once seemingly stood behind the law but things have changed and time has revealed that God stands behind the "law" of liberty (this may have always actually been the case)...

It is our duty to God to figure out what this law of liberty entails and how to walk in it's grace.

It is a mental and spiritual perspective not a human condition where the focus is pleasing God and not pleasing other humans.

The Bible talks about "the lords day" and many theists have confused this term with the weekly sabbath. That of course is also called the lord's day...

But this lords day is referring to a day in the future when humans will no longer do the judging but the lord will do the judging on God's behalf.

Where humans will no longer spit in his face and place accusations over his head but the lord Christ Jesus will do the judging and the saints (us the believers) will be with him in glory already having received our rewards and crowns of victory over this life.

0 Replies

Lady liberty is holding what book in her hand?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know