A Contradiction of Coercions Can We Have a Christian Explaination?

[Jenny A]

J Warner Wallace, William Lane Craig  http://www.bethinking.org/is-christianit...ristianity, Michael Murray and others. http://winteryknight.com/2009/02/16/why-...he-exists/ contend that there isn't enough evidence to prove god, only enough to make belief in god rational because if god were to provide proof, that would be coercive and god wants to be loved freely and without coercion.

I think any discussion of this little gem of an excuse ought to start with the definition of coercion:

1
:  to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious — W. R. Inge>
2
:  to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing>
3
:  to achieve by force or threat <coerce compliance>

merriam-webster.com

the use of force to persuade someone to do something that they are unwilling to do:

British English Dictionary

The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats. The crime of intentionally and unlawfully restraining another's freedom by threatening to commit a crime, accusing the victim of a crime, disclosing any secret that would seriously impair the victim's reputation in the community, or by performing or refusing to perform an official action lawfully requested by the victim, or by causing an official to do so.

The Free Legal Dictionary

Now, I can think of a whole number of cases where the actions of the Christian god, would be considered coercive by any and all of the above definitions: the story of Johna who was hounded first into running for the nearest ship and then forced off the ship by the storm (the would be both force and intimidation); the command that Lot and his family leave Sodom and Gomorrah (force and intimidation); the persuasion of the Pharaoh to let the Israelites go (threats, force and intimidation); the endless punishment of the Isrealites for worshiping Baal (domination by force) and so on.  Nothing much has changed.  The trinity god of the New Testament is if anything worse.  He/they threaten an eternal hell for those who do not accept Jesus and savior (threats).  That's coercion as I understand the definition.  Even withholding eternal life would qualify as a type of coercion.

And like the god it proclaims, the church doesn't have much problem with coercion either.  In it's mildest form it's teaching children that god exists as if it were fact.  In it's most heinous form it the burning of heretics.

So I think it's pretty clear that the god claimed by the Christians doesn't mind a little coercion here and there.  So I have a hard time imagining how anyone can claim with a straight face that god doesn't want to coerce belief.

But says Craig and company, god wants you to love him freely.  It sounds nice doesn't it?  God wants you to love him freely (shhh don't mention hell).  But it's a bate and switch game based on the two meanings of "to believe in."   One meaning is to believe in the existence of, as in I believe in ghosts, or gravity, or the big bang.  The other means to trust or love, as in I believe in my husband, or my senator (do you think anyone really does), or my friend. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believe  Craig has suddenly moved from belief in existence to belief of the loving trust type.  But we aren't demanding evidence that god is worthy of love.  The demand is for evidence of his existence.    

Is there a real world situation in which providing evidence of a proposition would be considered coercive?  I can only think of two which might possibly be shoe horned into the definition of coercion, neither of which applies to providing real proof.  Fraud is would be a better word.  The first would be providing false evidence to influence someone's decision; the second would be withholding evidence to force a wrong decision.  Providing evidence of the truth is not coercion.  

So what's really going on here?  Christians?