2,002
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 608:
Line 608: + + + + + + + + +
Peter
:::I agree somewhat; but somebody opened the etymological can of worms and it probably can't be shut now. And your latest post basically reiterated everything I said above. This really begs a question now, is the perversion of the meaning of the term "freedom", and "free", and "liberty" just accidental stupidity or a concerted effort by the slaves of sin to convince everybody else God's word is meaningless and thier desire to exercire "personal freedom in all its forms" should be regarded as normal and acceptable? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I agree somewhat; but somebody opened the etymological can of worms and it probably can't be shut now. And your latest post basically reiterated everything I said above. This really begs a question now, is the perversion of the meaning of the term "freedom", and "free", and "liberty" just accidental stupidity or a concerted effort by the slaves of sin to convince everybody else God's word is meaningless and thier desire to exercire "personal freedom in all its forms" should be regarded as normal and acceptable? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
== Peter ==
The lastest version said:
<blockquote>
However, 1 Peter 2:16 states, "As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God." <ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%202:16%20&version=9 1 Peter 2:16 (King James Version)]</ref> This definition, or understanding of the root 'liber', and the idea of being free, obviously conflicts with a secularized meaning that "favors personal [[freedom]] in all its forms", which really is a more apt description of "licentiousness".
</blockquote>
How is this relevant to 'Liberalism'? Isn't this kind of quoting the bible just selfserving? Because it doesn't serve the article. [[User:Order]] 6 April 10:25 (AEST)