Yep, it shouldn’t be depressing. The will is attracted to whatever it perceives to be the greater good. We choose love as we come to recognize that goodness in it.Proper freedom, if I were to try and put it in my own simple terms, is to act according to the nature or purpose for which the subject was created.
Therefore a will which is free is one that operates according to the way it was intended by God.
Why would love, which is an external influence, be depressing?
You’re misconstruing what I’m saying.No, this is false. God does not cause willing, or else He’d be the direct cause of all sin/evil. It would be ridiculous to pray, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" if not for the possibility of His will not being done.
God created us and gave us free will and sustains us in every moment of existence and in every act we perform. He’s right there when the murderer pulls the trigger but it’s precisely in the decision to pull the trigger that God is not directly involved; the murderer is allowed the freedom to oppose God’s will-and enabled to act on that choice. When God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree, did He want Adam to eat of it?You’re misconstruing what I’m saying.
God IS the cause of our willling because He causes us to will. That doesn’t mean that God is the cause of our sins because it is not God who is willing us to sin rather that it is our wills and it’s disordered appetites which choose contrary to what God wills.
God is pure act and the first cause in everything, not a passive observer who waits for us to choose on our own. As such God’s will is what sustains us and moves us into those movements of our wills which are proper to our nature.
That’s the world that is, that’s not the world God willed to create. But even so God’s will is achieved regardless of whether or not His creatures want to act according to His will or against it.Under your definition of freedom, you believe in a God who would decide to create a world where not all of his persons will his goodness.
No I am not saying that God causes our actions, I’m saying that God causes our willing. There’s a difference.You are excluding real freedom of action(or should I use the word “autonomy”) by defining freedom as being aligned with God’s will. Sure, our actions may or may not be in accordance with God’s will, but you are basically confirming that God causes our actions. And that is depressing.
You still are not explaining how it is possible to will against God if God causes our wills. If God was the ultimate mover of our wills, then we would only will God’s desires, and would not be free. You have to explain how God’s will can be opposed by another will when God is the cause of that will.That’s the world that is, that’s not the world God willed to create. But even so God’s will is achieved regardless of whether or not His creatures want to act according to His will or against it.
No I am not saying that God causes our actions, I’m saying that God causes our willing. There’s a difference.
Autonomy is not freedom. Christ said, “without Me you can do nothing.”
You’re still missing the point, it’s more fundamental.God created us and gave us free will and sustains us in every moment of existence and in every act we perform. He’s right there when the murderer pulls the trigger but it’s precisely in the decision to pull the trigger that God is not directly involved; the murderer is allowed the freedom to oppose God’s will-and enabled to act on that choice. When God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree, did He want Adam to eat of it?
So you are saying that God willed some creature to randomly choose between two options. Therefore, whatever Adam chose God caused it. Unless Adam was able to ultimately move himself to his own decision, it was God’s responsibility for his actions.You’re still missing the point, it’s more fundamental.
To answer your question, God didn’t want Adam to eat the fruit of the tree, but He did will Adam to will to either eat of it or not.
Foreknowledge does not include causation. Free will is at least basically compatible with God’s omniscience. It does not work when we assume that God creates all things, including the will and its motives.Free Will is an impossibility under an omniscient creator…He knows every action his created will take before they do so…in fact, before he even creates them. That foreknowledge makes Free Will an illusion.
I can choose contrary to my appetites. I can choose to deny myself food, drink, and sex, even while my appetites are demanding them. That, I believe, proves free will.The Church teaches that man has a free will (CCC 1731,1732).
However, I am curious how far the diminished or nullified responsibility would extend (CCC 1735-1737).
The 17th century philosopher Benedict Spinoza, believed that man’s free will was simply a lack of understanding about unconscious causes and appetites. Forgive me for such a long quote, but I am think particularly of this passage:
Thus an infant believes that of its own free will it desires milk, an angry child believes that it freely desires vengeance, a timid child believes that it freely desires to run away; further, a drunken man believes that he utters from the free decision of his mind words which, when he is sober, he would willingly have withheld: thus, too, a delirious man, a garrulous woman, a child, and others of like complexion, believe that they speak from the free decision of their mind, when they are in reality unable to restrain their impulse to talk. Experience teaches us no less clearly than reason, that men believe themselves to be free, simply because they are conscious of their actions, and unconscious of the causes whereby those actions are determined; and, further, it is plain that the dictates of the mind are but another name for the appetites…
As acknowledged by the Church, our actions have some mitigating circumstances, and I believe these kind of circumstances lead us to all the various habitual sins, and sins of “passion”. I don’t want to overstate this mitigation, and every sin presents it’s own circumstances, and it’s own mitigating factors.
But I believe this also extends to our actions that are not directly sinful - the way we look at ourselves and the world. And it’s only too obvious that our lives are, for the most part, determined by where we were born, who are parents are, and so on.; examples which have an indelible effect on our lives and our personalities.
Yes, but those actions would result from some motive, such as simply desiring to test if one has free will. And we can’t determine our motives, they are put upon us by external forces.I can choose contrary to my appetites. I can choose to deny myself food, drink, and sex, even while my appetites are demanding them. That, I believe, proves free will.
Of course it has motive. Making a choice without a motive is not free will, it’s insanity.Yes, but those actions would result from some motive, such as simply desiring to test if one has free will. And we can’t determine our motives, they are put upon us by external forces.
It is a commonly assumed concept that an act cannot occur without a motive.Of course it has motive. Making a choice without a motive is not free will, it’s insanity.
Not necessarily. Some choices are difficult to make and there is no rational way to choose between them, so people will flip a coin to decide.Of course it has motive. Making a choice without a motive is not free will, it’s insanity.
That is not the understanding of “motive” I am discussing. In your case, the decision of the coin would be a motive for an action.Not necessarily. Some choices are difficult to make and there is no rational way to choose between them, so people will flip a coin to decide.
Ok, then-I can certainly agree that it’s God’s will that we have free will. And that it’s not His will that we abuse this gift. He must highly prize the right use of this freedom by humans, to “risk” allowing us to have it at all.You’re still missing the point, it’s more fundamental.
To answer your question, God didn’t want Adam to eat the fruit of the tree, but He did will Adam to will to either eat of it or not.
With knowledge comes responsibility…no omniscient creator can simply slough off its role in the actions of the created. Foreknowledge + creation= causation…without the creation, the actions would never occur.Foreknowledge does not include causation. Free will is at least basically compatible with God’s omniscience. It does not work when we assume that God creates all things, including the will and its motives.
You are correct that creation is needed for causation; foreknowledge by itself is not sufficient.With knowledge comes responsibility…no omniscient creator can simply slough off its role in the actions of the created. Foreknowledge + creation= causation…without the creation, the actions would never occur.
False dichotomy. There were more than just two options. Adam could have tried to dispell the serpent himself or called on God to dispell the serpent.So you are saying that God willed some creature to randomly choose between two options.
Wrong again. God’s will is always towards the good. Adam’s will was at least towards a pride that sought to join Eve in emancipation by disobeying God. At the least he was less afraid of offending God and preferred to join Eve in sin rather than being just before God and alone(and doubting that God’s mercy and/or his sacrifice would have redeemed Eve).Therefore, whatever Adam chose God caused it. Unless Adam was able to ultimately move himself to his own decision, it was God’s responsibility for his actions.
Not at all because I don’t ascribe to your false view of freedom as personal autonomy(which is not even a Christian but a secular or even atheistic view from the philosophes of the “enlightenment”).Can you not see how the idea of God as First Mover contradicts the concept of free will?
With so many people denying the existence of hell it’s no surprise that these same people deny the existence of freedom.Ok, then-I can certainly agree that it’s God’s will that we have free will. And that it’s not His will that we abuse this gift. He must highly prize the right use of this freedom by humans, to “risk” allowing us to have it at all.
I did not include the possibly endless options Adam had to act at that point in time. I was just making a very simple statement that he could either choose to or to not do a specific act.False dichotomy. There were more than just two options. Adam could have tried to dispell the serpent himself or called on God to dispell the serpent.
Wrong again. God’s will is always towards the good. Adam’s will was at least towards a pride that sought to join Eve in emancipation by disobeying God. At the least he was less afraid of offending God and preferred to join Eve in sin rather than being just before God and alone(and doubting that God’s mercy and/or his sacrifice would have redeemed Eve).
In all cases your assertion that God either caused Adam to be tempted or to sin doesn’t follow because Adam did not choose what was good according to his nature and purpose. He abused his freedom by choosing slavery, slavery to sin and death.
Not at all because I don’t ascribe to your false view of freedom as personal autonomy(which is not even a Christian but a secular or even atheistic view from the philosophes of the “enlightenment”).
You see freedom as freedom from something(which is not freedom but license).
I see freedom as freedom for something, namely in love for God and neighbor. Under my freedom I am truly free; under your view of “freedom” I’m a slave.