"Where is the free will in Love Me Or Burn Forever?"

[Athanasius]

I would say there is no free will being asked for in the statement 'love me or burn forever'.   Based on the law which says 'thou shalt love the LORD thy God', it is not an act of will but of obedience.

'Will' is a capacity while 'obedience' is an act. Could it not be the case that through our will we choose to obey, or are you trying to say something else? The distinction you've offered is a bit of a funny one.

[Quantrill]

'Will' is a capacity while 'obedience' is an act. Could it not be the case that through our will we choose to obey, or are you trying to say something else? The distinction you've offered is a bit of a funny one.

I agree it is involved.  But think on this.  If a man has a wife and he tells her 'I choose to love you'.  How well do you think she will respond to that?   She doesn't want his love by an act of will.  She wants his love because he loves her. 

Compare David's sin concerning Bathsheba. (Ps. 51) David was repenting of his sin in that (Psalm).  He sought mercy because he was guilty.  Then he said a strange thing in (Ps. 51:16-). "For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt-offering."  But the Law, that was given by God, did require sacrifice and burnt offerings.  How could David refuse to give them?

I believe the answer is that David was a man after Gods heart.  (Acts 13:22)  He knew God and he knew the Law and it's sacrifices and offerings were not the end to what God wanted.  They were but a means to an end.  That end was a true heart after God.   (Ps. 51:17) "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise."

In other words some Pharisees could say they loved God.  They willfully obeyed the Law.  But many, if not most, were despised by God and Christ.  (Matt. 23) Their will to obey didn't change their heart. 

So, in my opinion, God begins with the demand.  Love Me.  And His people try to obey but fail in every way.   But God then says, that's ok because I love you and sends His Son to  make up the gap.   Then His people say thank you Lord...I love you.

Lees

[Athanasius]

I agree it is involved.

It's not an either/or then, Judge Wilhelm (an ethicist from Kierkegaard's Either/Or who was also a judge, and who also wrote at length about marriage).

But think on this. If a man has a wife and he tells her 'I choose to love you'. How well do you think she will respond to that? She doesn't want his love by an act of will. She wants his love because he loves her.

I think she would understand that her husband's choice to love her flows from his love for her. I'm not seeing a clean distinction. In love, there are choices, including the choice to love, and I don't know about you, but I wouldn't snicker at my wife if she said something like, "I love you, and this life situation we're going through is incredibly difficult, but I love you, and I have made a vow and I've chosen to you love even when things aren't going to plan and you maybe aren't so loveable".

True story.

Compare David's sin concerning Bathsheba. (Ps. 51) David was repenting of his sin in that (Psalm).  He sought mercy because he was guilty.  Then he said a strange thing in (Ps. 51:16-). "For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt-offering."  But the Law, that was given by God, did require sacrifice and burnt offerings.  How could David refuse to give them?

I believe the answer is that David was a man after Gods heart.  (Acts 13:22)  He knew God and he knew the Law and it's sacrifices and offerings were not the end to what God wanted.  They were but a means to an end.  That end was a true heart after God.   (Ps. 51:17) "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise."

In other words some Pharisees could say they loved God.  They willfully obeyed the Law.  But many, if not most, were despised by God and Christ.  (Matt. 23) Their will to obey didn't change their heart. 

So, in my opinion, God begins with the demand.  Love Me.  And His people try to obey but fail in every way.   But God then says, that's ok because I love you and sends His Son to  make up the gap.   Then His people say thank you Lord...I love you.

Lees

You've still contrasted a capacity with an act in writing "it is not an act of will but of obedience". What you've written above doesn't clarify your confusion. It's not a pure 'act of will' or 'obedience'. It's both.

[Quantrill]

It's not an either/or then, Judge Wilhelm (an ethicist from Kierkegaard's Either/Or who was also a judge, and who also wrote at length about marriage).

I think she would understand that her husband's choice to love her flows from his love for her. I'm not seeing a clean distinction. In love, there are choices, including the choice to love, and I don't know about you, but I wouldn't snicker at my wife if she said something like, "I love you, and this life situation we're going through is incredibly difficult, but I love you, and I have made a vow and I've chosen to you love even when things aren't going to plan and you maybe aren't so loveable".

True story.

You've still contrasted a capacity with an act in writing "it is not an act of will but of obedience". What you've written above doesn't clarify your confusion. It's not a pure 'act of will' or 'obedience'. It's both.

What is not an 'either/or'?  The topic is 'where is the free will in love me or burn forever'.    There is neither free will or love produced to the one commanded. 

Though a wife is unlovely during a marriage relationship and the husband 'chooses' to still love her, it is because love was already present prior to the marriage.  And I doubt  a married woman likes to be told by her husband that 'I choose to love you'. 

I'm not confused at all.  What made you say that?  I contrasted what is demanded by law and obeyed by law does not always reflect the heart.  A will demanded is not free will.  Love demanded is not love.

Lees

[RandyPNW]

I would say there is no free will being asked for in the statement 'love me or burn forever'.   Based on the law which says 'thou shalt love the LORD thy God', it is not an act of will but of obedience. 

I should think that "love me or burn forever" still requires free will. Martyrs choose to throw their lives away for a cause. Those who choose to "burn forever" are exercising their "free will."

An act of obedience does seem to be an act of will. One may or may not agree with the requirement, but it remains an act of will.

[RandyPNW]

It's not an either/or then, Judge Wilhelm (an ethicist from Kierkegaard's Either/Or who was also a judge, and who also wrote at length about marriage).

I think she would understand that her husband's choice to love her flows from his love for her. I'm not seeing a clean distinction. In love, there are choices, including the choice to love, and I don't know about you, but I wouldn't snicker at my wife if she said something like, "I love you, and this life situation we're going through is incredibly difficult, but I love you, and I have made a vow and I've chosen to you love even when things aren't going to plan and you maybe aren't so loveable".

True story.

You've still contrasted a capacity with an act in writing "it is not an act of will but of obedience". What you've written above doesn't clarify your confusion. It's not a pure 'act of will' or 'obedience'. It's both.

What is not an 'either/or'?  The topic is 'where is the free will in love me or burn forever'.    There is neither free will or love produced to the one commanded. 

Though a wife is unlovely during a marriage relationship and the husband 'chooses' to still love her, it is because love was already present prior to the marriage.  And I doubt  a married woman likes to be told by her husband that 'I choose to love you'. 

I'm not confused at all.  What made you say that?  I contrasted what is demanded by law and obeyed by law does not always reflect the heart.  A will demanded is not free will.  Love demanded is not love.

Lees

The impositions of the Law of God does require that we give up our self-autonomy. If we don't, our religious devotion becomes insincere.

We might argue that under duress people are not fully accountable for their actions. If God threatens damnation can they really be responsible for their choices?

But the "duress" of the human conscience, though it is an imperative, does not negate a free choice, nor does it even necessarily disturb a reasonable choice to comply with the imperative.

The consequences of doing wrong does motivate us to do right. But to be sincere in our choice to do right requires that we fully recognize our dependence upon God.

If we refuse to give up what we need to surrender in order to do right, then of course our choice to obey becomes insincere. To properly choose to do right, we must accept our dependence upon God, and be willing to give up our autonomous existence, separate from God's guidance.

Take, for example, the young woman who chooses to marry an outwardly "religious" man, who is intellectually gifted, full of talents, is good looking and has a lot of money. She does not sincerely choose to marry him for his religious devotion, but that becomes a cover for her real carnal interests.

When the inevitable divorce takes place, being that her husband is falsely religious, then instead of being sincerely repentant she doubles down in defending her choices. She does not give up her own carnal interests, but she covers them over with layers of bitterness and self-justification.

In this case, the threat of failure does not preclude choices. The choice is either in accord with God's demands or not. The outcome can be met with self-justification or with sincere repentance.

[Athanasius]

What is not an 'either/or'?  The topic is 'where is the free will in love me or burn forever'.    There is neither free will or love produced to the one commanded.

Your suggestion in the post that I quoted sets up a false dichotomy and should not be viewed as an either/or (within the context of this broader discussion):

I would say there is no free will being asked for in the statement 'love me or burn forever'.   Based on the law which says 'thou shalt love the LORD thy God', it is not an act of will but of obedience.

'It' is an act of will and of obedience, not an act of obedience instead of/over against/in contradistinction to the will. The two work together, and that's true even in scenario's where a choice appears to be otherwise compelled ('love me or burn forever'). Even Amanda Rogers knew the silliness of that demand -- the demand to be loved, that is. I don't think she threatened Riker with damnation.

Though a wife is unlovely during a marriage relationship and the husband 'chooses' to still love her, it is because love was already present prior to the marriage.  And I doubt  a married woman likes to be told by her husband that 'I choose to love you'.

The point is that these things are all related. The feeling of love, the desire to love, the want to continue to love, the duty to love, the choice to love. We can't take our existential scalpels to the love of a old couple and neatly divide its playing-out in the lives of these two lovers. John and Sherry are getting divorced? "Yes, they've just fallen out of love". As if love is something that happens to us. Love is a feeling, a choice, a desire, a duty. It's not Hollywood to be told that one's love is a choice, but at least that person has an awareness of what love actually is.

I'm not confused at all.  What made you say that?  I contrasted what is demanded by law and obeyed by law does not always reflect the heart.  A will demanded is not free will.  Love demanded is not love.

I know; I'm taking specific issue with your comparison of a capacity (will) with an act (obedience). The latter follows from the former. I'm getting at something like what Aquinas wrote https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2017.htm#article9, with this understanding of 'will' as the backdrop https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15624a.htm.

(I do wonder if 'love' can be demanded, which, over time, becomes love proper. Say, in an arranged marriage.)

[Quantrill]

I should think that "love me or burn forever" still requires free will. Martyrs choose to throw their lives away for a cause. Those who choose to "burn forever" are exercising their "free will."

An act of obedience does seem to be an act of will. One may or may not agree with the requirement, but it remains an act of will.

If you are forced to love or burn forever, it is not 'free will'.  It is your will exercised to avoid burning.  It does not produce the desired end which is  love of God.  Neither free will or a love of God has been exercised.

Lees

[RabbiKnife]

You propose a false dichotomy

The free will choice is “love me or do not love me”

That’s the only choice

Everything that follows is consequence

[Quantrill]

Your suggestion in the post that I quoted sets up a false dichotomy and should not be viewed as an either/or (within the context of this broader discussion):

'It' is an act of will and of obedience, not an act of obedience instead of/over against/in contradistinction to the will. The two work together, and that's true even in scenario's where a choice appears to be otherwise compelled ('love me or burn forever'). Even Amanda Rogers knew the silliness of that demand -- the demand to be loved, that is. I don't think she threatened Riker with damnation.

The point is that these things are all related. The feeling of love, the desire to love, the want to continue to love, the duty to love, the choice to love. We can't take our existential scalpels to the love of a old couple and neatly divide its playing-out in the lives of these two lovers. John and Sherry are getting divorced? "Yes, they've just fallen out of love". As if love is something that happens to us. Love is a feeling, a choice, a desire, a duty. It's not Hollywood to be told that one's love is a choice, but at least that person has an awareness of what love actually is.

I know; I'm taking specific issue with your comparison of a capacity (will) with an act (obedience). The latter follows from the former. I'm getting at something like what Aquinas wrote https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2017.htm#article9, with this understanding of 'will' as the backdrop https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15624a.htm.

(I do wonder if 'love' can be demanded, which, over time, becomes love proper. Say, in an arranged marriage.)

I disagree that what I stated was a 'false dichotomy'.   The demand was 'love me or burn'.   Ones will is exercised to survive, not to love God.  Ones will exercised to survive doesn't mean they now love God.  It means the one doing the demanding got his will...not the will of the one submitting. 

I disagree that love is a choice.  You can't make yourself love someone when you don't.  If you say I choose to love God, then you don't love Him.   That's like saying I choose to believe.   That is not belief.   An act of the will does not produce belief just like an act of the will does not produce love.

Of course love can be demanded just like it was under the Law.  But the demand does not produce any love.  Just like it didn't with those under law. 

Only love begats love. Is it not so with Christ?  (John 10:17) Christ said He knows the Father loves Him. He is loved.  In (John 15:13) Jesus said the greatest love is to lay down ones life for a friend  or brother.  So Christ is loved and in turn loves us.    Christ gives a new commandment.  (John 13:34, 15:12)  Love one another. Love the brethren.  Takes us back to (1John 4:10) It is not our love demanded.  It is the love of God shown to us that produces our love.  Love is always a response.  Not an act of the will.

John and Peter are good examples. Peter declared his undying allegiance to Christ and that he would never be offended by his connection with Christ.  (Matt. 26:33) (Mark 14:29) (Luke 22:33) (John 13:37).   

John on the other hand declared himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved.  (John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21:20, 21:24)

And who was there at the foot of the Cross when Jesus was crucified?  John.   (John 19:26)  The one who knew he was loved by Jesus.  Which produced a love in him for Jesus. 

Lees

[Fenris]

Was it the socks?

Those must have been some socks!

[RandyPNW]

Was it the socks?

Those must have been some socks!

You must never get distracted by socks when approaching strangers. My wife bought me a pair of socks the other day, so I put them on to go to church. When I got there and sat down I crossed my leg, my pant legs rising to show I had on marijuana socks!

Oh well, the truth comes out in the end! The fact my wife is blonde has nothing to do with it!

[Fenris]

You must never get distracted by socks when approaching strangers. My wife bought me a pair of socks the other day, so I put them on to go to church. When I got there and sat down I crossed my leg, my pant legs rising to show I had on marijuana socks!

[RandyPNW]

I should think that "love me or burn forever" still requires free will. Martyrs choose to throw their lives away for a cause. Those who choose to "burn forever" are exercising their "free will."

An act of obedience does seem to be an act of will. One may or may not agree with the requirement, but it remains an act of will.

If you are forced to love or burn forever, it is not 'free will'.  It is your will exercised to avoid burning.  It does not produce the desired end which is  love of God.  Neither free will or a love of God has been exercised.

Lees

Please tell me you see the contradiction in your statement? "It is *your will* exercised to avoid burning."

If that isn't free will, what is it?

I think what you're saying is that such a choice dilutes a pure choice from the heart that wants to do the right thing without threat of punishment. How can one say he really loves his wife if his stepfather is behind him holding a shotgun? I can understand your point.

[Quantrill]

@RandyPNW

No, I see no contradiction in my statement.  I explained my statement. 

If your will is  obtained under duress and threat, it is not your will to love God.  It is the will of the other which you submit to.  Vietnam POW's were forced  to sign papers  condemning the U.S. involvement in Vietnam.   They willfully signed due to torture and duress.  But that wasn't their will. 

The topic statement is confusing.  Eternal destiny, burning forever, is not based upon loving God.  It is based upon faith towards God.  It is not based upon you saying 'ok I love God'.  It is based upon your belief in God and Christ.  In other words, it is not based upon your 'will'.  (John 1:13) "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Lees