Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/745931460524318720

An important distinction seems to exist between (a) "free choice", defined as ability to select from among multiple options, and (b) choice that is free of potential negative consequence. To me, so far, the human experience's context seems generally considered to offer the former, but not the latter. Apparently as a result of the human level of free choice or self-determination, human behavior seems to have potentially adverse consequences, apparently in contrast with aspects of the human experience that seem to only have ability that does no harm. The purpose of the human level of self-determination seems reasonably suggested to be enjoyment of that advanced experience. However, to the extent that human behavior can have negative consequences, humans seem reasonably suggested to make behavioral choices that result in optimal human experience. To the extent that human perception is incapable of reliably identifying optimal behavior, humans seem to have the responsibility to consult the proposed omniscient manager of reality (within the context of primary relationship and sovereign authority) for behavioral guidance. To the extent that humans do not consult said manager of reality within that context, humans seem reasonably expected to harm reality. To the extent to which a human (or other point of reference) harms reality, said manager of reality seems reasonably responsible to protect reality from that harmful human or other point of reference, perhaps via reason, coercion or elimination, at said manager's Biblically-proposed omniscient discretion. To me, this depiction seems more consistent with the Bible's apparent depiction than "It's not a free choice but extortion of compliance via menaces; accept or fry".