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

[Athanasius]

The point being man doesn't have 'free will'.  Only God has 'free will'.  In everyplace one would want to use the term 'free will' for man, how would using just the term 'will' not suffice?   Answer: The term 'will' would suffice in everyplace.    As to God's 'free will', there is never any conflict with God and Himself.  He does His will free from any outside influence.

Ah, so a little bit of that Thomistic dialectic slips in after all.

I understand what you're saying. As I said, no one responsibly defines or predicates the 'free' in 'free will' on freedom from outside influence, one's appetites, context, circumstance, and so forth. The reason 'will' does not always suffice is that there is the question of what we mean by 'will', and its nature, and character. Is the will free, or is it constrained? If either, to what degree? What do we mean by 'will'? These are all reasonable questions in our quest for good will... hunting. (A bit rough that one.)

...anyway. They're reasonable questions, and asserting that "man doesn't have 'free will'" and also that the term "'will' would suffice in every place [the term 'free will' is used]" begs the question. You've yet to offer a positive, only negative, and while negative theology is fine for those people - like me - who can't be bothered to pronounce 'apophatic', it does leave us wanting. We're curious for more. What is the 'will' if it is not 'free'?

Yes, I have said man cannot will to love God nor can he will to believe.  (1John 4:10, 4:19) (John 1:13) (Matt. 16:16-17)  Man has never had 'free will' either before or after the fall.

But what do you mean? It is at this point where I'm asking you to define your terms, for we have hit a wall. A proper discussion isn't possible without mutual understanding, and 'the will isn't free because it's under threat/duress/whatever' are the first few words in the beginning of the argument. What's the rest of the argument?

Concerning the use of the word 'impose' I was simply using the term you brought up.  But, I have no problem with it.  And, concerning the Scriptures I gave you above, how is that not God imposing His will upon man?  How is (Acts 9:1-16) not God imposing His will upon man?

Oh don't be silly, I was following your use of the word, right here:

God doesn't impose on people to love Him or burn.  He imposes on them to believe or burn.

Of course, you have no problem with it, you said it first.

But what about Acts 9:1-16? My reply was written in reference to the idea of 'believe or burn' being a divine imposition, and I argued that it was not for this was a caricature of the reality of the situation (that being my view that hell is a consequence and the 'threat' isn't a threat at all). This was not a broader comment about God never 'imposing His will upon man'.

Context, and all that.

What do you mean concerning God's bloody and brutal salvation when you say maybe it didn't have to be that way if people were different?   Are you blaming people or God?  Either way the blame or responsibility goes back to God. Why didn't God create a salvation where all man had to do was climb a certain mountain and hollar Praise God three times and your sins are all forgiven and Heaven is  yours forever?  Instead of through blood and death?

What a curious direction; why have you immediately jumped to a notion of 'blame'? I wasn't commenting on blameworthiness or responsibility, only that if people had accepted Christ instead of crucifying him, then who is to say a bloody brutal sacrifice would have been necessary?

Climbing a mountain wouldn't have been fair to the disabled and infirm, obviously. Or those afraid of heights. Or the unfit. Would society have to be organised around a particular mountain, or would any mountain do? Would people in the UK be damned for their lack of mountains, or can a hill be used in a squeeze?

Concerning your quote from William James, I believe (John 1:13) and (Matt. 16:16-17).  God must first give to man the faith to believe. Then the will of man is exercised.

Can you expand on this?

Concerning the word 'love' in (Deut. 10:12), it means to have an affection for.  See Strongs concordance.

Dictionaries are wonderful things, aren't they? Where's the demand?

Concerning Aquinas, dying for what one loves is commendable.  But it doesn't mean all that they wrote about is correct.  I'm sure he has many good things to say.

I'll have to check my notes where I said that everything Aquinas wrote was correct. The death comment was a bit of cheek, as he died before finishing the Summa, which I previously linked to.

Concerning the contrast with John and Peter, I believe it is there.   That Jesus loved all the disciples, Judas being a question mark,  is not the point.  It was John who recognized that it was the love of Christ for him that was preeminent.  With Peter it was all about Peter's faithfulness being boasted of.  And the one who knew Christ loved him is the one at the foot of the Cross. The one who boasted of his loyalty and faithfulness denied Christ.  It is no wonder John wrote what he did in (1John 4:10).

Lees

So Peter boasted in himself and walked on water as a consequence?

[Quantrill]

Ah, so a little bit of that Thomistic dialectic slips in after all.

I understand what you're saying. As I said, no one responsibly defines or predicates the 'free' in 'free will' on freedom from outside influence, one's appetites, context, circumstance, and so forth. The reason 'will' does not always suffice is that there is the question of what we mean by 'will', and its nature, and character. Is the will free, or is it constrained? If either, to what degree? What do we mean by 'will'? These are all reasonable questions in our quest for good will... hunting. (A bit rough that one.)

...anyway. They're reasonable questions, and asserting that "man doesn't have 'free will'" and also that the term "'will' would suffice in every place [the term 'free will' is used]" begs the question. You've yet to offer a positive, only negative, and while negative theology is fine for those people - like me - who can't be bothered to pronounce 'apophatic', it does leave us wanting. We're curious for more. What is the 'will' if it is not 'free'?

But what do you mean? It is at this point where I'm asking you to define your terms, for we have hit a wall. A proper discussion isn't possible without mutual understanding, and 'the will isn't free because it's under threat/duress/whatever' are the first few words in the beginning of the argument. What's the rest of the argument?

Oh don't be silly, I was following your use of the word, right here:

Of course, you have no problem with it, you said it first.

But what about Acts 9:1-16? My reply was written in reference to the idea of 'believe or burn' being a divine imposition, and I argued that it was not for this was a caricature of the reality of the situation (that being my view that hell is a consequence and the 'threat' isn't a threat at all). This was not a broader comment about God never 'imposing His will upon man'.

Context, and all that.

What a curious direction; why have you immediately jumped to a notion of 'blame'? I wasn't commenting on blameworthiness or responsibility, only that if people had accepted Christ instead of crucifying him, then who is to say a bloody brutal sacrifice would have been necessary?

Climbing a mountain wouldn't have been fair to the disabled and infirm, obviously. Or those afraid of heights. Or the unfit. Would society have to be organised around a particular mountain, or would any mountain do? Would people in the UK be damned for their lack of mountains, or can a hill be used in a squeeze?

Can you expand on this?

Dictionaries are wonderful things, aren't they? Where's the demand?

I'll have to check my notes where I said that everything Aquinas wrote was correct. The death comment was a bit of cheek, as he died before finishing the Summa, which I previously linked to.

So Peter boasted in himself and walked on water as a consequence?

If the will is influenced, or 'constrained', from any outside source it is not free.  That could be through people, through Spirit/spirits, through situations one is in.   That you deem that irresponsible is immaterial to me.  There is no place where the term 'will' cannot be used in place of 'free will'.  Why?  Because there is no place where man exercises 'free will'.  The will of man is his will.  His ability to decide.

I have told you what I mean.  I am not aware of any wall.  I have defined my terms.  I have given you Scripture that supports what I am saying.  Is that the wall you speak of?  Interesting.  You asked a question and I answered.  Man has never had 'free will'.  That includes Adam and Eve. 

Concerning the use of the word 'impose' I was following your use of it in post #(32).

Why a curious direction?  You now focus on  the peoples fault for not accepting Christ. Yet we are told that Christ was slain from the foundation of the world. (Revelation thirteen:eight) Which means what?  It means it was always the plan of God, even before He created man.

Concerning (John 1:12-13) it is pretty self-explanatory.  "...even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."  The will plays no role in being saved.  It is faith, belief.  Concerning (Matt. 16:16-17) it too is very plain.  Jesus had just asked his disciples who do you say that I am.  (16:15)  Peter answered, "Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God".   (16:16)  Jesus then said "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hat not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (16:17)  Peter could only have come to this belief because God revealed it to him.  And this will be true of all believers in Christ.

Concerning the word 'love' in (Deut. 10:12), the 'demand' is not in the word love.  It is found throughout the book of (Deuteronomy).  For example, (Deut. 6:5) says  "And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might."  Just prior to that, in (6:1-4), reasons are given as to why Israel should keep  the commandments which involve mostly blessing. Then in (6:15) warning is given. "(For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth."

I never said Peter's walking on water was a consequence of his boasting.  Perhaps his sinking would have been.

Lees

[RabbiKnife]

You robots feel free to continue the discussion that is preprogrammed and predetermined by a puppetmaster.

Since the script is written, you can but play your part as dictated.

I, on the other hand, will exercise both discretion and wisdom and leave you to it.


There is a passage in Proverbs that instructs as to certain answers, and I'll take Proverbs instruction here.

Enjoy.

[Fenris]

The will of man is never free. 

This simply isn't true. And it can be proved from human experience. Have you read "Man's search for meaning" by Viktor Frankl? If you haven't, you really should. Viktor Frankl was a Jewish neurologist, psychiatrist, and philosopher who lived in Austria. A prolific writer, he authored some 39 books. Because of his faith, he was sent to the Nazi death camps. He lost his mother, his father, his brother, and his wife. He alone of his family survived the Holocaust. Because of his training, from his experiences he made deep and meaningful observations about human behavior.

He noted the following- "We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.”

From this, he was satisfied to conclude that "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom."

No free will? Of course we have free will. It is the greatest gift that God gave us.

[Athanasius]

If the will is influenced, or 'constrained', from any outside source it is not free.  That could be through people, through Spirit/spirits, through situations one is in.

You're assuming that the will is necessarily influenced, not that it can be influenced, and in this latter case, there's certainly no argument against the word 'free' if that influence is known and considered by the person in question. This isn't the case either, even if the will is unknowingly influenced -- necessarily.

That you deem that irresponsible is immaterial to me.

Curious. Are you someone who thinks 'free will' means that the will is free from everything? Then yes, that's an irresponsible conception of free will. If not, then what I wrote was not a statement that applies to you.

There is no place where the term 'will' cannot be used in place of 'free will'.  Why?  Because there is no place where man exercises 'free will'.  The will of man is his will.  His ability to decide.

This is a meaningless language game, Lyotard.

I have told you what I mean.  I am not aware of any wall.  I have defined my terms.  I have given you Scripture that supports what I am saying.  Is that the wall you speak of?  Interesting.  You asked a question and I answered.  Man has never had 'free will'.  That includes Adam and Eve.

I understand what you've written. I'm asking you to go beyond the assertion "the will is constrained therefore it isn't free". Is that really all there is, an attempt to assert an axiom? 

Concerning the use of the word 'impose' I was following your use of it in post #(32).

That was a tangential point relating to how a typical someone might argue against the genuine expression of the will insofar as they'd construe 'believe or burn'. Anyway, this is neither here nor there.

Why a curious direction?  You now focus on  the peoples fault for not accepting Christ. Yet we are told that Christ was slain from the foundation of the world. (Revelation thirteen:eight) Which means what?  It means it was always the plan of God, even before He created man.

Curious, because you could have asked anything, but went straight to blame.

Yes, Christ was slain and foreknowledge is a neat little trick indeed. Had the people of the first century accepted Christ, would Revelation 13 read differently? Was Christ's sacrifice on a cross necessary, vs. any other sacrifice? That's the Molinist in me coming out. She's irritating at the best of times.

Concerning (John 1:12-13) it is pretty self-explanatory.  "...even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."  The will plays no role in being saved.  It is faith, belief.  Concerning (Matt. 16:16-17) it too is very plain.  Jesus had just asked his disciples who do you say that I am.  (16:15)  Peter answered, "Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God".   (16:16)  Jesus then said "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hat not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (16:17)  Peter could only have come to this belief because God revealed it to him.  And this will be true of all believers in Christ.

Sigh, the gravity of the existential reality of belief and faith seem lost to you. Believe as you will.

Concerning the word 'love' in (Deut. 10:12), the 'demand' is not in the word love.  It is found throughout the book of (Deuteronomy).  For example, (Deut. 6:5) says  "And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might."  Just prior to that, in (6:1-4), reasons are given as to why Israel should keep  the commandments which involve mostly blessing. Then in (6:15) warning is given. "(For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth."

Oh, so a broader context.

I never said Peter's walking on water was a consequence of his boasting.  Perhaps his sinking would have been.

Lees

I know you didn't. You may have the final word, as I will... not have anything further to say.

[RandyPNW]

Yes, but I think it actually involves both. When a person makes a choice to be loving he must draw upon the love of God to do that, whether he is conscious of it or not. I've seen a lot of pagans get real emotional and happy during Christmas time, and not know why they're so sentimental!

Or it's just the wonderful world of human (emotional) experience, as viewed by Christians who insert the mysteries of God into every little thing. This is the cynicism of having grown up Pentecostal.

I turned from Lutheranism to Pentecostalism just after turning 17 years old. The Lutheran experience was completely dead to me, although I have a good friend from that time who became a Lutheran pastor, and is, I think, a very good one.

I don't think I've ever completely drunk the Kool-Aid from Pentecostalism, although I have to say there was obvious power there, along with signs and wonders. But the theology was often very flawed--apparently God was less concerned with the theology than with the attention to the immediate spiritual need.

But over time, the theological deficiencies became glaring and serious. I can't stand the Faith Movement, although I will still call those who are in it brothers and sisters. I could go on, but I agree with you--I remain skeptical of all good works, including Christian good works, that are not truly inspired by the Holy Spirit. A lot of "religious talk" covers and hides a lot of abuse.

God created us with the capacity to love, as misguided as it may sometimes be (e.g. Matthew 5:46). Certainly, there is a love for others that is a reflection of God's love for us, but I wonder if that's a step beyond, and no such drawing from the wellspring of the love of God is required is otherwise required.

I think the same God presents the same love to all men, Christian or pagan. The difference between the two is that the Christian internalizes God's love by embracing it as the exclusive religious ethic, as opposed to choosing to disregard God when it is convenient to do so, confusing the conscience with various justifications.

Therefore, the pagan can do good, can genuinely love with the love of God. But it is being treated like a can of corn, here today and gone tomorrow--disposable like an old, abandoned wife. That kind of "love" is hard to compare with true Christian love. But I think we need to acknowledge the good that all people do, because God created them, impartially, to be able to do that.

[Quantrill]

The will of man is never free. 

This simply isn't true. And it can be proved from human experience. Have you read "Man's search for meaning" by Viktor Frankl? If you haven't, you really should. Viktor Frankl was a Jewish neurologist, psychiatrist, and philosopher who lived in Austria. A prolific writer, he authored some 39 books. Because of his faith, he was sent to the Nazi death camps. He lost his mother, his father, his brother, and his wife. He alone of his family survived the Holocaust. Because of his training, from his experiences he made deep and meaningful observations about human behavior.

He noted the following- "We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.”

From this, he was satisfied to conclude that "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom."

No free will? Of course we have free will. It is the greatest gift that God gave us.

The political freedom to exercise ones will is not what is being addressed here. 

Man's will given him by God is what is being addressed. 

Lees

[Quantrill]

You're assuming that the will is necessarily influenced, not that it can be influenced, and in this latter case, there's certainly no argument against the word 'free' if that influence is known and considered by the person in question. This isn't the case either, even if the will is unknowingly influenced -- necessarily.

Curious. Are you someone who thinks 'free will' means that the will is free from everything? Then yes, that's an irresponsible conception of free will. If not, then what I wrote was not a statement that applies to you.

This is a meaningless language game, Lyotard.

I understand what you've written. I'm asking you to go beyond the assertion "the will is constrained therefore it isn't free". Is that really all there is, an attempt to assert an axiom? 

That was a tangential point relating to how a typical someone might argue against the genuine expression of the will insofar as they'd construe 'believe or burn'. Anyway, this is neither here nor there.

Curious, because you could have asked anything, but went straight to blame.

Yes, Christ was slain and foreknowledge is a neat little trick indeed. Had the people of the first century accepted Christ, would Revelation 13 read differently? Was Christ's sacrifice on a cross necessary, vs. any other sacrifice? That's the Molinist in me coming out. She's irritating at the best of times.

Sigh, the gravity of the existential reality of belief and faith seem lost to you. Believe as you will.

Concerning the word 'love' in (Deut. 10:12), the 'demand' is not in the word love.  It is found throughout the book of (Deuteronomy).  For example, (Deut. 6:5) says  "And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might."  Just prior to that, in (6:1-4), reasons are given as to why Israel should keep  the commandments which involve mostly blessing. Then in (6:15) warning is given. "(For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth."

Oh, so a broader context.



I know you didn't. You may have the final word, as I will... not have anything further to say.

If man's will is influenced, whether by known or unknown source, it isn't free. 

I have stated several times already that 'free will' means a 'will' that is not acted on or influenced from any outside source.  And only God has 'free will'.

You ask for definition.  I give you definition.  You say it is a meaningless language game.  You don't like the definition?

Yes, I know you understand what I have written.  You ask questions and I answer and you act as if I didn't answer.   Apparently you don't like the answer.   I have not just given an axiom.  I have answered your questions and have supported them through Scripture. 

Of course it is neither here nor there...but as I said, I responded to your use of the word impose.

I went straight  to blame as that is what you were suggesting.  Which is proven by your focus on the people's fault for not accepting Christ.  No trick.  God knows all His works from the beginning of the world.  (Acts 15:18)  Jesus Christ would die and must die for the sin of the world.  Nothing is an 'if' with God. 

Well, concerning my explanation of (John 1:12-13) and (Matt. 16:16-17), you asked.  Sorry you don't like the explanation.  I guess it is one of those instances if you don't really want to know...don't ask.

Concerning (Deut. 10:12), you also asked.  I simply answered. 

Well, I don't ever try and get the last word.  If you remember I tried to exit the discussion earlier yet you continued with it forcing me to answer.    it's been a pleasure talking with you. 

Lees

[Fenris]

The will of man is never free. 

This simply isn't true. And it can be proved from human experience. Have you read "Man's search for meaning" by Viktor Frankl? If you haven't, you really should. Viktor Frankl was a Jewish neurologist, psychiatrist, and philosopher who lived in Austria. A prolific writer, he authored some 39 books. Because of his faith, he was sent to the Nazi death camps. He lost his mother, his father, his brother, and his wife. He alone of his family survived the Holocaust. Because of his training, from his experiences he made deep and meaningful observations about human behavior.

He noted the following- "We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.”

From this, he was satisfied to conclude that "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom."

No free will? Of course we have free will. It is the greatest gift that God gave us.

The political freedom to exercise ones will is not what is being addressed here. 

I don't understand where politics entered the discussion. Does a person have the freedom to choose their own decisions? Yes, yes we do. As Viktor Frankl witnessed. As we all witness, every day.

[Athanasius]

Does a person have the freedom to choose their own decisions? Yes, yes we do. As Viktor Frankl witnessed. As we all witness, every day.

His contention is that any constraint, imposition, influence, etc., on the will nullifies any notion of 'free', such that although it looks as if we make free choices, we don't, and that's true of everyone including Adam and Eve. Conveniently, experience is no counterargument because the requisite metaphysical exclusions are already in place. You think you're free to express your will, but it's your hunger that impressed upon you the need to eat Lucky Charms this morning. You are not free, silly Asgardian.

But this is absurd. It's a bad existential joke. It is to say nothing of the dieter who rejected the very same insatiable hunger and ate vegetables instead. But that one is merely hungry is definitive proof that one lacks free will, for if one was truly free one could stop eating! And so some people have, and we now refer to them as dead. Well, dead people don't eat so I guess they truly were free after all? For nothing now impresses upon them except the underside of dirt.

It is a shame he has been fated with such a view -- doubly so that he thinks I've been forcing him to answer as if he does not possess the will to refrain of his own accord.

[Fenris]

It is a shame he has been fated with such a view -- doubly so that he thinks I've been forcing him to answer as if he does not possess the will to refrain of his own accord.

There seems to be a theme around here lately that some members feel that they are the private recipient of hidden knowledge (TM) and should be believed simply on the basis of that claim alone.

[RandyPNW]

Does a person have the freedom to choose their own decisions? Yes, yes we do. As Viktor Frankl witnessed. As we all witness, every day.

His contention is that any constraint, imposition, influence, etc., on the will nullifies any notion of 'free', such that although it looks as if we make free choices, we don't, and that's true of everyone including Adam and Eve. Conveniently, experience is no counterargument because the requisite metaphysical exclusions are already in place. You think you're free to express your will, but it's your hunger that impressed upon you the need to eat Lucky Charms this morning. You are not free, silly Asgardian.

But this is absurd. It's a bad existential joke. It is to say nothing of the dieter who rejected the very same insatiable hunger and ate vegetables instead. But that one is merely hungry is definitive proof that one lacks free will, for if one was truly free one could stop eating! And so some people have, and we now refer to them as dead. Well, dead people don't eat so I guess they truly were free after all? For nothing now impresses upon them except the underside of dirt.

It is a shame he has been fated with such a view -- doubly so that he thinks I've been forcing him to answer as if he does not possess the will to refrain of his own accord.

BF Skinner seemed to think we are all making decisions by the stimuli that conditions our predicted responses. I reject a world predetermined by things that make our free choices an illusion. "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" was an interesting read. But it is false.

[RandyPNW]

I think Lees is concerned with the difference between a proposed idea and a manipulated idea? What is propaganda and what is a recommendation between two opposite choices?

Duress is a legal term and renders a "free choice" to be tainted by manipulation. How can acceptance of God be valid if the alternative is damnation?

I don't see it as an invalid question. Lees personally informed me that he wasn't denying free will--just the validity of free will informed by manipulation and threat. At least that's the way I understood him.

I suggested that he, from the start, should've clearly stated that he was not denying free will, and just state his concern that Christianity was a proposition possibly tainted by duress. I think that's what he meant.

I think that the idea of duress in religious proposals can be dealt with in the same way duress is dealt with legally. We can simply deny when a person is being threatened physically, as opposed to a hypothetical threat from the afterlife.

After all, a person is being proposed something. If that proposal is rejected as an inconsistency, then Hell was never a threat to start with--just a possibility. But if the religion is accepted, along with the threat of Hell, then the person never was manipulated by the idea. He is accepting the conditions of the proposal.

When some Christians try to frighten people into accepting Christianity, by the threat of Hell, I think most people recognize the inconsistency, and reject it. Or, they accept the proposition despite the poor delivery of the proposal.

[RabbiKnife]

It is a shame he has been fated with such a view -- doubly so that he thinks I've been forcing him to answer as if he does not possess the will to refrain of his own accord.

There seems to be a theme around here lately that some members feel that they are the private recipient of hidden knowledge (TM) and should be believed simply on the basis of that claim alone.

Gnosticism never really goes away.

[Athanasius]

Duress is a legal term and renders a "free choice" to be tainted by manipulation. How can acceptance of God be valid if the alternative is damnation?

Sure, but that's choice and not will, and freedom of the will and the freedom to choose isn't quite the same thing. True storytime.

I recently - I suppose it's been 7 months now - made a 'choice', and I put that word in scare quotes because it wasn't the freest of choices I've made. The circumstances of my life dictated the choices that I had, but on this point, it's important to keep in mind that the circumstances of life frame the context of all of the choices we make.

- I could accept ongoing and worsening, already severe depression, and physical ailments. In other words, do nothing.
- I could mitigate the physical ailments, but accept ongoing and worsening, and already severe depression. I could fix the physical, but not the psychological.
- I could mitigate some of the physical ailments, and potentially all of the depression, but would need to act contrary to my beliefs, concerns, and enter into a state of cognitive dissonance. I'd heard rumours that I could fix both.

Now, imagine you're in your late 20s or early 30s and you're expected to live for another 30+ years (God willing). You're already severely depressed, you know what it means to be chronically physically ailing, and you used to work in retirement homes so you know how life ends for many people -- not nicely. Not nicely. What do you pick? There's no fourth option, you have to pick one of the three.

Here's how it went:

I'm not strong enough to choose the first option.
I tried the second option for two and a half years and started becoming suicidal.
I didn't want to risk the second option so I tried the first one after all for a year and a half. I was pretty darn close to planning.
I then gave up, gave in, and went with the third option.

I think it's the worst personal failing I'll ever experience. At least, I hope. I consider myself an abject failure because of it. I'm waiting for the hammer to fall. It's quite unfortunate because I'm no longer depressed. My dysphoria is little more than a gentle reminder most of the time. I'm not thinking about how many pills, or if the railing will hold me, or what the train timetable is, or if I could put the driver of a transport through the trauma (but those last two are too aesthetically displeasing).

There's a song from Marina called 'Teen idol' that contains the refrains:

Yeah, I wish I'd been, I wish I'd been, a teen, teen idle
Wish I'd been a prom queen, fighting for the title
Instead of being sixteen and burning up a bible
Feeling super, super, super suicidal

The wasted years, the wasted youth
The pretty lies, the ugly truth
And the day has come where I have died
Only to find, I've come alive

In some twisted way, that's me. I feel more alive than I remember ever feeling, but at what cost?

Throughout these last few years has my will been anything but free because of the influence of this or that? Not at all. Have I been any less free to choose because the choice has been coerced? Not at all. Life is not a courtroom. We all have choices and we all have the will to instantiate the person who chooses. It's not easy, it's difficult, we're weak, we mess up, but the mere presence of influence doesn't suddenly negate the freedom of the will. No matter what those old reformers thought.

The choice to believe in God or burn, or love God or be destroyed, or whatever, isn't an artificial construction. It's also a caricature. God isn't making an arbitrary threat, as if He's so petty He'll accept unwavering devotion or else. What we're given is the consequence: relationship with God is life, rejection of God is death. It's a brute fact, a description of reality. It's the difference between "you'll burn if you reject me" and "I'll burn you if you reject me". The call to believe, to love, to enter into a relationship with God isn't what we often make it out to be, as if everyone starts off certain, or especially regenerated, or whatever. Faith is possible, and the will to believe.

Or like, existence is duress because we have to live without our circumstances.

Anyway, I have a song to listen to.