No subscription or hidden extras
Read through the most famous quotes by topic #freed
There may be some truth (atheists) do not need to believe in a god to be good, but then if they do not believe in a god, who do they believe gives the Universal Law of following good and shunning evil? Obviously, mankind. But then that is a dangerous thing, for if a man does not believe in a god capable of giving perfect laws, he is in the position of declaring all laws come from man, and as man is imperfect, he can declare that as fallible men make imperfect laws, he can pick and choose what he wishes to follow, that which, in his own mind seems good. He does not believe in divine retribution, therefore he can also declare his own morality contrary to what the divine may decree simply because he believes there is no divine decree. He may follow his every whim and passion, declaring it to be good when it may be very evil, for he like all men is imperfect, so how can he tell what is verily good? The atheist is in danger of mistaking vice for good and consequently follow another slave master and tyrant, his own physical and mental weakness. Evil would be wittingly or unwittingly perpetrated, therefore, to recognise the existence of a perfect divine being that gives perfect Universal Laws is much better than not to believe in a god, for if there is a perfect god, they will not allow their laws to be broken with impunity as in the case with many corrupt judges on earth, but will punish accordingly in due time. Therefore, to be pious and reverent is the surest path to true freedom as a perfect god will give perfect laws to prevent all manner of slavery, tyranny and moral wantonness, even if we do not understand why they are good laws at times. ↗
when your actions towards acquiring leadership in any country portrays blatant mischief orchestrated towards disregarding the concepts of the constitution, you do not only become guilty of hijacking power which rightfully belong to the people, but also, you are guilty of violation of the rights of freedom of the same people that you purport to want to lead. Like any match, elections is competition towards democracy, and all competitions have rules that set guidelines in that particular competition. Any violation of such rules renders that competition invalid. True democracy does not condone compromises. True democracy upholds and adheres to the rule of law, for it is the rule of law that can explicitly define democracy. ↗
To want something desperately, to be tested, to feel that life will be impossible if the object of one's desires is not achieved, is always dangerous for the soul. Some people attempt to climb Everest because, as they say, it is there; others want nothing but wealth and care little how or where they collect it; others still, with less avaricious tastes - perhaps desiring nothing more than freedom from fear - are blinded by the same personal sun that shines on all human ambition. At some time or another it burns most of us. ↗
Sometimes we need to feel bad to know what it's like to feel good... ↗
#feeling-bad #inspirational-quotes #life-and-living #reality #survivors
Michael Ledeen—a contributing editor of National Review and a Freedom Scholar at the influential neoconservative think tank American Enterprise Institute—wrote on the National Review blog in November 2006: 'I had and have no involvement with our Iraq policy'. I opposed the military invasion of Iraq before it took place.' Ledeen, however, wrote in August 2002 of 'the desperately-needed and long overdue war against Saddam Hussein' and when he was interviewed for Front Page Magazine the same month and asked, 'Okay, well if we are all so certain about the dire need to invade Iraq, then when do we do so?' Ledeen replied: 'Yesterday.' There is obvious, substantial risk in falsely claiming that one opposed the Iraq War notwithstanding a public record of support. But that war has come to be viewed as such a profound failure that that risk, at least in the eyes of some, is outweighed by the prospect of being associated with Bush's invasion. ↗
Sie wollen pflanzen für die Ewigkeit, Und säen Tod? Ein so erzwungnes Werk Wird seines Schöpfers Geist nicht überdauern. Dem Undank haben Sie gebaut - umsonst Den harten Kampf mit der Natur gerungen, Umsonst ein großes königliches Leben Zerstörenden Entwürfen hingeopfert. Der Mensch ist mehr, als Sie von ihm gehalten. (...) Gehn Sie Europens Königen voran. Ein Federzug von dieser Hand, und neu Erschaffen wird die Erde. Geben Sie Gedankenfreiheit. (...) Sehen Sie sich um In seiner herrlichen Natur! Auf Freiheit Ist sie gegründet - und wie reich ist sie Durch Freiheit! Er, der große Schöpfer, wirft In einen Tropfen Thau den Wurm und läßt Noch in den todten Räumen der Verwesung Die Willkür sich ergötzen - Ihre Schöpfung, Wie eng und arm! Das Rauschen eines Blattes Erschreckt den Herrn der Christenheit - Sie müssen Vor jeder Tugend zittern. Er - der Freiheit Entzückende Erscheinung nicht zu stören - Er läßt des Uebels grauenvolles Heer In seinem Weltall lieber toben - ihn, Den Künstler, wird man nicht gewahr, bescheiden Verhüllt er sich in ewige Gesetze; Die sieht der Freigeist, doch nicht ihn. Wozu Ein Gott? sagt er: die Welt ist sich genug. Und keines Christen Andacht hat ihn mehr, Als dieses Freigeists Lästerung, gepriesen. (...) Weihen Sie Dem Glück der Völker die Regentenkraft, Die - ach, so lang - des Thrones Größe nur Gewuchert hatte - stellen Sie der Menschheit Verlornen Adel wieder her. Der Bürger Sei wiederum, was er zuvor gewesen, Der Krone Zweck - ihn binde keine Pflicht, Als seiner Brüder gleich ehrwürd'ge Rechte. Wenn nun der Mensch, sich selbst zurückgegeben, Zu seines Werths Gefühl erwacht - der Freiheit Erhabne, stolze Tugenden gedeihen - Dann, Sire, wenn Sie zum glücklichsten der Welt Ihr eignes Königreich gemacht - dann ist Es Ihre Pflicht, die Welt zu unterwerfen. (Marquis von Posa; 3. Akt, 10. Szene) ↗
The modern world, which denies personal guilt and admits only social crimes, which has no place for personal repentance but only public reforms, has divorced Christ from His Cross; the Bridegroom and Bride have been pulled apart. What God hath joined together, men have torn asunder. As a result, to the left is the Cross; to the right is Christ. Each has awaited new partners who will pick them up in a kind of second and adulterous union. Communism comes along and picks up the meaningless Cross; Western post-Christian civilization chooses the unscarred Christ. Communism has chosen the Cross in the sense that it has brought back to an egotistic world a sense of discipline, self-abnegation, surrender, hard work, study, and dedication to supra-individual goals. But the Cross without Christ is sacrifice without love. Hence, Communism has produced a society that is authoritarian, cruel, oppressive of human freedom, filled with concentration camps, firing squads, and brain-washings. The Western post-Christian civilization has picked up the Christ without His Cross. But a Christ without a sacrifice that reconciles the world to God is a cheap, feminized, colourless, itinerant preacher who deserves to be popular for His great Sermon on the Mount, but also merits unpopularity for what He said about His Divinity on the one hand, and divorce, judgment, and hell on the other. This sentimental Christ is patched together with a thousand commonplaces, sustained sometimes by academic etymologists who cannot see the Word for the letters, or distorted beyond personal recognition by a dogmatic principle that anything which is Divine must necessarily be a myth. Without His Cross, He becomes nothing more than a sultry precursor of democracy or a humanitarian who taught brotherhood without tears. ↗
If you buy an egg thinking it's a goose's egg, and when it hatches it is actually a bird of paradise; no manner of convincing and reproach will turn the bird of paradise into a goose. Even if you make it go to goose church and goose school and eat goose feeds and only hang out with geese! In the end, it will still belong to paradise. ↗
What am I to God? Nothing, a murky shadow. My passage on this earth is too rapid to leave any traces; it counts for nothing in space or in time. God really doesn't pay any attention to us, so even if he exists, it's as if he didn't. My form of atheism, however, leads inevitably to an acceptance of the inexplicable. Mystery is inseparable from chance, and our whole universe is a mystery. Since I reject the idea of a divine watchmaker (a notion even more mysterious than the mystery it supposedly explains), then I must consent to live in a kind of shadowy confusion. And insofar as no explication, even the simplest, works for everyone, I've chosen my mystery. At least it keeps my moral freedom intact. ↗
