23 posts · 6 participants · started Feb 27, 2015, 6:13 PM
This subject fascinates me. It’s also perplexing. How could there be such a thing as false liberty? Seems to be an oxymoron. Isn’t liberty liberty? Some synonyms for liberty are: independence, freedom, autonomy, sovereignty, self-rule, self-determination, self-government, human rights, prerogative, right, freewill choice. These seem to be desirable to me. How can liberty be false?
What is true liberty?
Liberty has to do with the gift of choice, or free will. All personalities are free to make choices and act upon them. True liberty results from doing God’s will; false liberty comes from acting against God’s will. That’s basically how I see it in a nutshell.
I think the difference between true and false liberty is pretty thoroughly covered in Paper 54 Section 1.
Curious:
do you think for example: that rebellious Midwayers believed in their hearts they were doing Gods will?
I love it when TUB uses contrasts to help illustrate a difficult concept. Such is done for this question about the difference between true liberty and false liberty:
(614.1)54:1.6 True liberty is the associate of genuine self-respect; false liberty is the consort of self-admiration. True liberty is the fruit of self-control; false liberty, the assumption of self-assertion. Self-control leads to altruistic service; self-admiration tends towards the exploitation of others for the selfish aggrandizement of such a mistaken individual as is willing to sacrifice righteous attainment for the sake of possessing unjust power over his fellow beings.
For me, it seems to come down to the ego. Are our choices driven by our ego? If so, they may be an exercise of false liberty. If our choices are motivated by love and service, then they are true liberty. I agree with Bonita’s comments about God’s will.
I think we all agree that liberty of choice is necessary, albeit liberty is curtailed according to the level a being functions on. As humans, we have essentially two choices. Do we want to have relationships with Deities or with ourselves? If we choose ourselves, then we are rebels against the universe which is swarming with friendly Deities. According to our choice, Deity either comes to us or keeps its distance. Without the presence of Deity as partner to our personality, there is no truth, no true identity. What’s left is falsehood or error, or choosing unreality over reality. That’s just another way to say that true liberty comes when personality chooses to be friendly with Deity and thus align itself with universe reality. False liberty results from the opposite alignment.
Related quotes: 13:4.5; 112:5.2; 118:9.2; 132:3.9; 133:5.8; 180:5.8
Curious: do you think for example: that rebellious Midwayers believed in their hearts they were doing Gods will?
Of the Midwayers, I do not know. But you raise an interesting question I wonder about from time to time: How do you know you are doing God’s will? I think the fact that such a question would occur indicates to oneself that, yes, you are on the right track. Otherwise, why would such a question ever come up in your mind? Of what others are doing and whether or not what they are doing is God’s will? I do wonder.
Curious: do you think for example: that rebellious Midwayers believed in their hearts they were doing Gods will?
Of the Midwayers, I do not know. But you raise an interesting question I wonder about from time to time: How do you know you are doing God’s will? I think the fact that such a question would occur indicates to oneself that, yes, you are on the right track. Otherwise, why would such a question ever come up in your mind? Of what others are doing and whether or not what they are doing is God’s will? I do wonder.
If this idea has value in reality then I can assume that with sincere effort coupled with the divine gifts we have at our disposal, we simply get better at this the more we work at it?
Another thing to consider when discussing liberty is truth. We all know that truth sets us free. Liberty comes from living the truth because truth can be acted out (2:7.6). Truth can be acted out because it is real, it conforms to the reality of the cosmos. That which is untrue (false) cannot be acted out because it is unreal. Attempting, over and over and over again, to act out untruth results in a self-destructive spiral, because it is imaginary, delusional and destined to become unreal or non-existent. That’s what false liberty is all about, the failure to sincerely recognize truth and actually attempt to live it.
141:7.6 Jesus laid great emphasis upon what he called the two truths of first import in the teachings of the kingdom, and they are: the attainment of salvation by faith, and faith alone, associated with the revolutionary teaching of the attainment of human liberty through the sincere recognition of truth, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Jesus was the truth made manifest in the flesh, and he promised to send his Spirit of Truth into the hearts of all his children after his return to the Father in heaven.
The first mention of true and false liberty is in Paper 54 – 54:1:0 in connection with the rebellion of 200,000 years ago (more or less). A higher universe personality, a Lanonandek Son – our System Sovereign at the time, hatched his ideas in his own mind (53:2:3) due to his pride of self in which he actually believed he was doing something good (53:2:5), and he succumbed to the urge of self and surrendered to the sophistry of spurious personal liberty — rejection of universe allegiance and disregard of fraternal obligations, blindness to cosmic relationships. (53:0:1)
It’s one thing to succumb to the urge of self and to believe what you’re doing is “good”, to reject allegiance to God, to disrespect fraternal obligations and turn a blind eye to cosmic relationships, as an individual person carrying out one’s personal choice. It’s quite another thing to campaign, as a brilliant executive promoting your corrupted and willful ideas, by premeditation to influence everyone else to join the bandwagon. It’s the scale of the campaign that makes the difference, and, I think the brilliance of the personality of the instigator, the one who promulgates a falsehood – a perversion of truth – bears heavily on culpability of the individual.
Well said Mara. I think it a foundational error to wish to or attempt to predict, predetermine or manage/manipulate others into results. The end NEVER justifies the means….and yet many do so believe this falsehood. The “end” is not ours to know or manage…but the means of service in love of ALL others and each other is the best route to the best end…individually and collectively. Otherwise, we put ourselves above others, even Deity itself, and demonstrate a lack of faith, trust, loyalty, and confidence in God’s will, way, power, purpose, and process….it is the highest/lowest form of self puffery and self promotion and self satisfaction….that we know better. Easier to understand as a tadpole’s folly than for one so high in authority, trust, and experience as Lucifer and his fellow conspirators. The angels and midwayers I understand well enough…..leadership and loyalty to authority combined to bring unusual confusion and doubt to a crowd who had never known such before. I believe all or most all such ones came to the reality and truth of the matter soon enough.
False liberty dominates and diminishes the liberty of others or disregards it (at best) which defies and defiles the WAY of love. To love oneself over others is to disconnect from the circuitry of love….and reality. We are provided this option as an inherent potential in free will and individual-ness or selfhood. But one option is false….always….the option of self serving and self love. The consequences of this liberty is also inevitable……
"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
Bradly wrote: False liberty dominates and diminishes the liberty of others . . .
And need I point out a perfect example of false liberty we’ve all just recently seen on this forum? Trolling is an exercise of false liberty.
Bradly wrote: “False liberty dominates and diminishes the liberty of others . . .”
And need I point out a perfect example of false liberty we’ve all just recently seen on this forum? Trolling is an exercise of false liberty.
Me here: Very true. I must confess however, my exercise of false liberty in response to this. I think that situation was an important opportunity to realize the “audience” and my obligation to respond to such an opportunity to act like an ambassador of the kingdom of believers and those who abide in faith. I admit I still am attached to being right and to convince others of my rightness (there is some part of me that keeps delighting in my own brilliance! – hahaha) – and there is nothing humble about those emotional reactions, even though I was sorely abused….it’s not about me.
We are here to share and care and discover further appreciation for truth, beauty, and goodness. It has been enlightening to feel the ego enlarge and the urge to correct and dominate and convince rise up….too quickly and too easily and too often. It is not what happens but how I respond to what happens that both determines and demonstrates maturity, balance, wisdom, and reality alignment. May I do better with my liberty in those challenges to come. I thank this community for its collective response and unity in the face of such an onslaught of vulgarity and self love as we experienced together here….and there will be further opportunities to come….count on it. Peace.
"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
Bradly wrote: I admit I still am attached to being right and to convince others of my rightness (there is some part of me that keeps delighting in my own brilliance! – hahaha)
Ummm . . . . excuse me, but when you’re convinced that you’re right about something, you should have the courage to speak up and defend your opinion. In light of the extreme inaccuracies and nonsense most recently spewed upon this forum, I think your words were more likely the result of following your loyalties to divinity than to your ego. I mean, what kind of man would Peter, or Stephen, or any of the martyrs, have been if they buckled under the tyranny of false liberty and kept their mouths shut? There’s a time for speaking up, it just takes wisdom to know when and what to say. But the impulse to defend the truth should never be squelched, in my opinion. To do so takes no cojones at all. Spiritual cowards flip flop with the wind. Spiritual bravery requires taking a stand, just like Gabriel, like Van, like Amadon, like countless others who weren’t afraid to say what they thought about the sophistries of erroneous thinking.
There’s nothing wrong with delighting in your own brilliance provided it doesn’t lead to conceit and pride. As long as you attribute the source of your brilliance, I don’t see being bedazzled by it as a problem. That is, unless you’re completely delusional and believe you have a direct line to the Almighty who whispers universe secrets in your ear. Seriously, so few take delight in deep thinking, so to say that you take delight in your own deep thinking is actually a badge of honor, on some level. At least you try, and no doubt, your efforts dazzle you because you actually get results from your deep thinking! What a concept!
What a delightful and generous “rebuke”. Thanks for that. I did not intend to be self demeaning….just acknowledge the reality that I still have much to learn….and there is no small challenge to responding to the false liberty others may take for themselves at the expense of others. I cannot tell you my appreciation for the words of comfort and encouragement I have enjoyed over my years with this Forum. I find it a most wonderful place to learn and share…..and share a caring for one another.
You teach me further Bonita. I would charge the gates of hell without a second thought for truth and for another….if there were such a place. Indeed, the faithful must have courage and commitment and tenacity and give all glory to those who provide such assets to the believer. Another form of paradox…spiritual courage to stand up to tyranny and yet to be humble while so doing. Tricky business yet for me but….I’m learning. Here’s to true liberty! May the stronger protect the weaker and do so with sublime confidence in our source and destiny. Service. In love….and more wisdom to come. Behold the mighty tadpole….an agondontor to be.
"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
Bradly wrote: . . .spiritual courage to stand up. . .
149:2:10 As Jesus mingled with the people, they found him entirely free from the superstitions of that day. He was free from religious prejudices; he was never intolerant. He had nothing in his heart resembling social antagonism. While he complied with the good in the religion of his fathers, he did not hesitate to disregard man-made traditions of superstition and bondage. He dared to teach that catastrophes of nature, accidents of time, and other calamitous happenings are not visitations of divine judgments or mysterious dispensations of Providence. He denounced slavish devotion to meaningless ceremonials and exposed the fallacy of materialistic worship. He boldly proclaimed man’s spiritual freedom and dared to teach that mortals of the flesh are indeed and in truth sons of the living God.
Sure Jesus didn’t have any axes to grind, and yes he was patient and tolerant,“. . . but he did not teach passive tolerance of wrongdoing.” (140:8.4) Jesus also abhorred the “. . . idea of becoming just a passive sufferer or victim of injustice.” (159:5.11)
133:2.1 As was his custom, Jesus intervened in behalf of the person subjected to attack.
I don’t think Jesus was sitting on his duff when he stopped a husband from beating up his wife (133:2.1); nor do I think it was just guff when he bitterly denounced the Pharisees’ shameful flouting of marriage, pointing out their injustice to women and children (167:5.4); and he wasn’t being a powder puff when he stopped the drunken degenerate from attacking a slave girl (130:5.4). Jesus was strong, assertive and courageous when it came to injustice. He always stepped up to the challenge.
Bonita wrote: He always stepped up to the challenge.
130:1:5 Jesus‘ last visit with Gadiah had to do with a discussion of good and evil. This young Philistine was much troubled by a feeling of injustice because of the presence of evil in the world alongside the good. He said: “How can God, if he is infinitely good, permit us to suffer the sorrows of evil; after all, who creates evil?” It was still believed by many in those days that God creates both good and evil, but Jesus never taught such error. In answering this question, Jesus said: “My brother, God is love; therefore he must be good, and his goodness is so great and real that it cannot contain the small and unreal things of evil. God is so positively good that there is absolutely no place in him for negative evil. Evil is the immature choosing and the unthinking misstep of those who are resistant to goodness, rejectful of beauty, and disloyal to truth. Evil is only the misadaptation of immaturity or the disruptive and distorting influence of ignorance. Evil is the inevitable darkness which follows upon the heels of the unwise rejection of light. Evil is that which is dark and untrue, and which, when consciously embraced and willfully endorsed, becomes sin.
67:1:4 There are many ways of looking at sin, but from the universe philosophic viewpoint sin is the attitude of a personality who is knowingly resisting cosmic reality. Error might be regarded as a misconception or distortion of reality. Evil is a partial realization of, or maladjustment to, universe realities. But sin is a purposeful resistance to divine reality — a conscious choosing to oppose spiritual progress — while iniquity consists in an open and persistent defiance of recognized reality and signifies such a degree of personality disintegration as to border on cosmic insanity.
“. . . while iniquity consists in an open and persistent defiance of recognized reality. . .”67:1:4
We know that false liberty is the consort of self-admiration, but what is the theft of liberty? What is the big bad someone does to steal another’s liberty? I can see the theft of liberty playing out in nation-states with dictatorial rulers, but surly the UB discussion of the theft of liberty is more about something personal than systems of governing and the qualities of rulers.
We know that false liberty is the consort of self-admiration, but what is the theft of liberty? What is the big bad someone does to steal another’s liberty? I can see the theft of liberty playing out in nation-states with dictatorial rulers, but surly the UB discussion of the theft of liberty is more about something personal than systems of governing and the qualities of rulers.
Mara, it should not be that difficult to understand what “false liberty” would be to an individual, where it is about personal choice, regardless of possible outcome to the individual. This would parallel a persons “free will” to choose, even if that choice may be seen by others as error or sin. If the “systems of governing” presents itself with rules or laws which would benefit some and not all individuals, then if those rules and laws are supported by a majority or, in some cases a minority, they would be a liberty to those who believe in those rules or laws, which apply to them only but, “false liberty” to those who would oppose the enforcement of those rules or laws against those individuals who wish not to be subject to what may be considered as “true liberty” by others. Even if the rules or laws would not be detrimental to either party, it is a fact that to give liberty to someone through a rule or law, and if it is not freely chosen by all who are subject to this liberty only making or forcing the enforcement to all because some consider it as “true liberty.”
An example of this can be found in Galatians 2 KJV, where verse 4 stands out:
(1) Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. (2) And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. (3) But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: (4) And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: (5) To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. (6) But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: (7) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (8) (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) (9) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. (10) Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
In the case above, the issue is over whether believers in “Christ Jesus” should be subject to “circumcision” as with the rules or laws of the Jews, and that those Christian Jews versus Gentile Christians would not be excepted by both groups, depending on an act of submitting to circumcision, just because there may have been an argument that since Jesus was a circumcised Jew then in order to be a Christian by some, who were probably circumcised as Jews prior to becoming Christians, believed that this would be a “true liberty” of showing allegiance to Jesus as “true” Christian, where on the other hand those who refrained from being subjected to circumcision would be considered as “false” Christians. However, as it turned out, they decided to separate their ministries and go their different ways. In actuality it would not have really been a major thing to be circumcised, where there might have been a health reason for doing so, but it was the fact that one group would be subject over the choices of others by taking away their right to their free will choice to choose, placing the others into “bondage” because of a rule or law subjected to all.
This should not be misinterpreted for all rules or laws in that there are many that have become necessary to be enforced for the benefit of all.
There are other rules and laws which may not be rules and laws but mandates which are being subjected to or against people, like mandates in the medical industry, where Doctor’s and or governmental authorities subject individuals to rules which restrict their choices because it is deemed appropriate by either statistics or profit. Why do Doctors almost mandate patients to take high blood pressure or cholesterol lowering medication, in order to be treated? Or, why would local government attempt to restrict the sale of sugary drinks to a specific size? Is this not taking away an individuals right to choose? Therefore, by enforcing these types of rules or laws, they have created a sense of “false liberty” because one has no other choice, but then there are those who support these rules or laws because they believe that these are “true liberty” for all.
However, would not “self-admiration” also be subjected to “true liberty” also, where those who have mandated rules or laws over others, believing that what they are doing is right or just, just because, do they not have a sense of “self-admiration” for thinking themselves as be right and just, taking away someone’s right to choose?
