Bini Posted March 31, 2014 Report Posted March 31, 2014 So an intervention can be court ordered or non-court ordered, but is initiated by family for their loved one, regardless if that individual wants help or not (usually they don't), and covers all kinds of situations: mental illness, domestic violence, and substance abuse.My intervention wasn't court ordered but it was still forcefully done. At the time I was beyond mad at my parents. I think I gave them the silent treatment for about a year. But now, years later, I couldn't be more grateful for what was done, especially now that my life is in order and The Lord has blessed me with my wonderful husband and our daughter. Just thinking though, how does an intervention and agency go hand-in-hand? Quote
The Folk Prophet Posted March 31, 2014 Report Posted March 31, 2014 So an intervention can be court ordered or non-court ordered, but is initiated by family for their loved one, regardless if that individual wants help or not (usually they don't), and covers all kinds of situations: mental illness, domestic violence, and substance abuse.My intervention wasn't court ordered but it was still forcefully done. At the time I was beyond mad at my parents. I think I gave them the silent treatment for about a year. But now, years later, I couldn't be more grateful for what was done, especially now that my life is in order and The Lord has blessed me with my wonderful husband and our daughter. Just thinking though, how does an intervention and agency go hand-in-hand?They are irrelevant to one another. Agency is not freedom. Freedom may be taken away. Agency may not. A lot of people equate agency with being able to do whatever you want. That is not what agency is. Agency is the right to choose between salvation and damnation. It is not the right to break the law and not go to jail for it, etc...In point of fact, agency is meaningless without punishment. The right to choose between salvation and damnation has no meaning if there is no damnation (punishment). So agency actually depends on punishment.A person cannot take another persons agency away. But a person can take away another's freedom. And, at times, it is morally right to take away another's freedom. (Jail being a prime example, timeouts for children being another, your situation being another.) In none of these situations is the person's agency affected in the least. Quote
Bini Posted March 31, 2014 Author Report Posted March 31, 2014 Thanks for you take, Church.Agency is the right to choose between salvation and damnation.So, what about the agency to choose between salvation and damnation through the choice of remaining in a bad situation? Quote
The Folk Prophet Posted March 31, 2014 Report Posted March 31, 2014 Thanks for you take, Church.So, what about the agency to choose between salvation and damnation through the choice of remaining in a bad situation?If I understand your question correctly, I think I would say that we need to consider agency in broader terms than black and white. Every choice we make applies, either leading us closer to God or further away from Him. So choosing to stay in a situation that we shouldn't, that leads us away from God, will hinder our progression and could, possibly, lead us ultimately to damnation. But as long as we're alive, there is always repentance, which is the change of direction that leads us once again towards God. Quote
Blackmarch Posted March 31, 2014 Report Posted March 31, 2014 They are irrelevant to one another. Agency is not freedom. Freedom may be taken away. Agency may not. A lot of people equate agency with being able to do whatever you want. That is not what agency is. Agency is the right to choose between salvation and damnation. It is not the right to break the law and not go to jail for it, etc...In point of fact, agency is meaningless without punishment. The right to choose between salvation and damnation has no meaning if there is no damnation (punishment). So agency actually depends on punishment.A person cannot take another persons agency away. But a person can take away another's freedom. And, at times, it is morally right to take away another's freedom. (Jail being a prime example, timeouts for children being another, your situation being another.) In none of these situations is the person's agency affected in the least.the memory thing I use to help me understand agency is that it is a lot like the word agent, and an agent represents a person (or group of persons), place, or thing.. so for me free agency is saying we are able to choose who (or what) we will represent.freedom is about how many choices you have available to choose from.I suppose that righteous intervention is the means that while reducing someones freedom for a short period in order to keep them from losing even more freedom further down the road. That or taking the consequences for someone else's choices. Quote
The Folk Prophet Posted April 4, 2014 Report Posted April 4, 2014 the memory thing I use to help me understand agency is that it is a lot like the word agent, and an agent represents a person (or group of persons), place, or thing.. so for me free agency is saying we are able to choose who (or what) we will represent. Your philosophy is only partially right. The agent thing is correct. But agency is not choosing who or what are agents of. We represent ourselves. We are agents to ourselves. That is what agency is. We stand on our own, representative of ourselves, and therefore responsible for ourselves. In point of fact, the concept of agency can fairly fully be understood in the 2nd Article of Faith: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.