Isn't that a tad bit tautological?
The last "freely" is added for emphasis. You can disregard it without losing the meaning of the definition.
In addition, it appears that you are claiming that if you don't have the ability to seek it, or know it... then you cannot be free.
You are correct.
You cannot seek or desire the good if you don't know what's good.
I'm smiling. I can only guess your definition of "the good" is what "God says it to be".
No need to guess, I'll tell you. The good of a living thing is its proper object. For example, the good or proper object of a tree is to grow and reproduce. The good of a bird is to fly. The proper object, the good, or the final end for human beings is eternal life with God. A properly ordered life directs all lesser functions toward this end. Therefore, at times, eating an ice cream cone might serve a man's good or final end, and at other times it may not, if he's a glutton, for example.
In this country, people differ on what "the good" is -- even good Christians.
The truth is independent of an individual person's understanding of it.
That's why we give "freedom" to people to pursue their definition of it.
This is political freedom, not true, absolute freedom. The degree of this kind of freedom that is granted to citizens is a matter for prudential judgement. Some freedoms, like freedom of conscience, should not be violated by the state. Other "freedoms," like freedom of speech, which Americans take for granted, should not be absolute. Examples include pornography and slander. However, the state can legitimately restrict political speech if it serves the common good. It's not an absolute right.
To answer your question, I think most of these references are on the right path: Definition of Liberty, with Liberty is self ownership being the decisive "economic" difference between capitalism and statism.
This is the error of libertarianism. It's close to the truth, so it's not easy to see. No one has an absolute right to self-ownership. No one has a right to harm himself, for example. As a rule of thumb, it works. But it lays the groundwork for false intellectual judgements regarding "victimless crimes" such as pornography, homosexual "marriage," sodomy laws, prostitution, etc.
Liberty is freedom from coersion, whether from one person or from a democratic vote certainly sums up our Republic and Rule by Law philosophy.
Again, this is a rule of thumb. But no one has the liberty to harm the common good. The first principle of the State is the promotion of the common good, as the preamble to the Constitution states.
Bearing to this thread, I pick Liberty is determining for yourself how to live your life...
Taken absolutely, this is false. This is license, not liberty. I would define liberty in the political sense as freedom from coercion from the state in making decisions that should be the province of the individual or family.
...and Liberty is the only social arrangement consistent with the Golden Rule.
True liberty, as defined above. The definition is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity, which is a corrollary of the Golden Rule.
Then it seems more like the definition of wisdom rather than freedom. How about substituting question in place of know?
The truth is independent of an individual person's understanding of it.
That is the definition of absolute truth. I just fear the day when some other more populous religion that is quite antagonistic to Christians starts using these "absolute" definitions to their benefit at the disadvantage of Christians. Their numbers are increasing, not to claim that they will overtake us. Aren't you a bit disturbed by that thought, that maybe there is a way that another larger group of people can use these arguments to retaliate? Is this a violation of the Golden Rule?
How do you spot the wolf in sheep's clothing? How do you know you are not making a big mistake?
No one has a right to harm himself, for example. As a rule of thumb, it works. But it lays the groundwork for false intellectual judgements regarding "victimless crimes" such as pornography, homosexual "marriage," sodomy laws, prostitution, etc.
But what if a large group of atheists, get in to power and define "religion" as false, or better yet, detrimental to society? It has happened over there. I hear lots of arguments that sound good on the surface as to why they claim to be right. Are we not drawing too much comfort on the fact that 75% of America claims to be Christian? It used to be much higher?
I also see that you misspell judgment exactly the same way I do. I cannot seem to un-learn that habit. Thanks for the response. I like the way you think.