A Contradiction of Coercions Can We Have a Christian Explaination?

[Randy Carson]

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.

This is a fair representation of the Christian position. I'm happy that we will be discussing what Christians ACTUALLY believe and not a strawman.

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

Good definitions. Thank you for providing them as a starting point.

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.

I, too, thought of Jonah's situation with regard to coercion. I think if you read the story carefully, Jonah chose (freely) at least two if not three times to disobey God before he finally chose (freely again) to accept God's will. He COULD have kept on fighting, you know. But that's not very satisfying, is it? However, there's more to the story.

According to the Jews (and Wikipedia!), "The book of Jonah (Yonah יונה) is one of the twelve minor prophets included in the Tanakh. According to tradition, Jonah was the boy brought back to life by Elijah the prophet, and hence shares many of his characteristics (particularly his desire for "strict judgment"). The book of Jonah is read every year, in its original Hebrew and in its entirety, on Yom Kippur – the Day of Atonement, as the Haftarah at the afternoon mincha prayer."

If this is true, Jenny, then Jonah already knew that God existed. Jonah had prior experience of God's intervention in his life. So, God wasn't coercing Jonah into BELIEVING that He existed...God was simply having trouble getting Jonah to obey Him! I could probably make a similar case for a number of the examples you cite above.

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.

Teaching children that God exists (as a fact) is no more coercive than teaching them that democracy is superior to dictatorship. Or that capitalism is better than communism. If you aren't happy with these analogies, spend some time thinking up some of your own. It shouldn't be difficult.

The burning of heretics was intended to prevent the spread of a spiritual disease - heresy. Was the threat intended to coerce the heretic into recanting? Absolutely. But this was the action of MAN - not God.

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.

Well, I just explained the errors in your reasoning, so yeah, I can say with a straight face that God does not want to coerce you into believing in Him. The fact that you don't believe provides evidence to that effect. If God WERE about coercion, you would know it, wouldn't you?

But says Craig and company, god wants you to love him freely.  It sounds nice doesn't it?

Of course. Because it IS nice.

God wants you to love him freely (shhh don't mention hell).  

You don't have to love God. You are free to choose. If you choose to maintain your current trajectory of unbelief, you may find yourself granted what you have always wanted (separation from God) for all eternity. You should be thrilled with that possibility...

Unless, of course, you may have regrets about your decision after having seen that yes, God does exist. In which case, choosing to be separated from him for all eternity might be unpleasant. But some here in this forum claim that this will be their choice no matter what. Hopefully, you will not be among that crew.

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.

How is this "bate [sic] and switch"?

Clearly, you "believed" in the existence of your husband before you fell in love with him. Similarly, we can believe that God exists without really knowing Him more personally or intimately. For example, do you believe that Barack Obama is the President of the United States? Of course. Do you know much about him (his childhood, his education, his views on various political and social issues)? Probably. Do you know him personally as you would a know a neighbor or a co-worker or a friend? Probably not - unless you happen to be in his circle of friends and acquaintances (are you?).

Similarly, it is possible to know about God without knowing God, and there are believers and unbelievers in this group, btw. But just as hearing about some guy (Stage 1) that you would eventually meet, love and marry (Stage 2), so you can hear about God and accept that information BEFORE falling more deeply in love with Him.

This is not "bait and switch", Jenny. This is the normal process that we humans go through as we learn to love another being.

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?

I'm not providing false information about God nor am I withholding evidence (even about hell, for example). I am providing the best information and arguments that I can so that you can make an intelligent, informed decision.

That's what's going on here.