Which is greater love or freedom ?

by caliber 12 Replies latest jw friends

  • caliber
    caliber

    Which is greater love or freedom ? Can they exist apart ?

    Link
  • ziddina
    ziddina

    Without freedom, that which is called "love", is actually ownership...

    Zid - who's "owned" by several cats, a dog, and two hamsters...

    Link
  • N.drew
    N.drew

    Love is greater imo. Yes, they can exist apart imo because it is written "you will know the truth and the truth will set you free. Finding truth needs love imo, then freedom needs truth. love...truth...freedom.

    Reading the other posts i realize that my answer is the bible's answer.

    Link
  • tec
    tec

    Love is greater, imo. Love would by nature give freedom.

    You can also fight for freedom, and take it. (love doesn't have to be involved in that at all) But without love, you might not be compelled to give it to someone else.

    Peace,

    Tammy

    Link
  • TheUbermensch
    TheUbermensch

    Depending on what absence of freedom we are talking about, love could be made a privilege rather than a natural right, so I would say freedom. I would rather be free to love than remember my love of freedom.

    Link
  • Lore
    Lore

    Apples and oranges.

    Can you have love without freedom?

    I loved my parents when I was 9. (I still do, but 9 is the example I'm going with here)

    I had no freedoms to speak of.

    If I didn't love them it's not like I could just leave.

    Link
  • N.drew
    N.drew

    Good Lore!

    Comparing the greatest freedom to the greatest love I will still go with love.

    But if it is any freedom or any love, I'd go with freedom I think. If I went with freedom I could change my mind. If I chose love without any freedom, that's like dead because I couldn't change my mind.

    Link
  • ziddina
    ziddina
    "If I chose love without any freedom, that's like dead because I couldn't change my mind. ..."

    NOW your're getting it, n.Drew...

    I stand by what I said - and I'm definitely NOT going by a Bronze-Age Middle-Eastern MALE mentality, here....

    "Love" without freedom isn't love - it's enslavement... [Guess I should have said 'enslavement' in the first post... ]

    brb, if I can fix that...

    Link
  • tec
    tec

    "Love" without freedom isn't love

    I am in agreement here.

    I think I am going from the perspective of the person who grants the freedom. Love is most important, because love by necessity will grant that freedom. Or it is not love.

    Peace,

    Tammy

    Link
  • ziddina
    ziddina

    Dang!

    Past 30 minutes - can't fix it...

    But to reiterate...

    "Love" isn't "love" if one is controlled or coerced or intimidated or influenced to remain under the CONTROL of the one offering the "love"...

    And to be perfectly honest, my poor critters aren't "loved"; they're "owned"...

    But I do love them - if love, in this instance, can be defined as limiting their actions to keep them close and safe, feeding them healthy food even though they want some of MY stuff, taking them to the vets - which they hate, and so on...

    But please don't even ATTEMPT to correlate my comments about caring for animals, to the actions of a Bronze-Age Middle-Eastern MALE desert 'god'...

    Link

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit