A Contradiction of Coercions Can We Have a Christian Explaination?

[Randy Carson]

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.

It's a fair representation of what J.W. Wallace and William Lane Craig.  Let's not flatter me or them with representing Christianity as whole.

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


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
[hide]
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.

You could say most of the people I cited already believed in god.  But that wasn't my point.  My point was that god doesn't mind a little coercing.  And you must admit all of my examples are of coercion, usually coercion to obey.  So I can't say I'm overly impressed that in this one little area, i.e. belief in his existence, god doesn't want to be coercive.  It's an insane distinction.  If you wanted to gear a government to make people as free as possible would pass extremely restrictive laws enforced by fear of death but hide the existence of the government's actual head?  It's an explanation geared to explain an utter failure of evidence of god, invented by man.  Either that or god is a mad man.

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.

Yes in god's name, coercion.

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?

No, my case is that lack of evidence of god, is evidence there is no god.  The idea that god just doesn't want to coerce us is silly.  God as described by the bible is really good at coercion and he does a lot of it.  And he doesn't stop his church from doing the same.  So I find it insane to argue that this dictatorial god withholds evidence of himself in order not to be coercive.  There are saner schizophrenics.

Of course. Because it IS nice.

Would be if there were a god.

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.

Here's where you and Craig lose it for me again.  The apologetic is to explain why there isn't proof of god's existence.  Loving god is a completely different matter.  It would be quite possible to know he exists but not love him.  Forced love would indeed be coercive.  Evidence of existence is not.

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

The apologetic is about proof of existence, but it switches from proof of existence to unforced love.  They aren't by any means equivalent.

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.

Sorry, it's quite possible to know people very well without loving them.  Being introduced to my husband would not be coercive to loving him.  It would be damn good evidence of his existence.  So if my friends wanted me to know him, would they drop vague hints about a guy without introducing him, or just talk about him a lot, but fail to introduce even if I asked to meet him?  Would they say, well you just have to find him for yourself?  Sorry, but it doesn't wash.

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.

I know you aren't withholding evidence Randy.  You are claiming god is.  My suggestion to you is that is because there isn't a god not because there is a god who doesn't want to coerce belief.

And by the way, I think that God uses a variable amount of evidence/coercion based upon the needs/ability of the person. We don't really have a measurement for units of grace, but I'll make one up for illustrative purposes.

So, for a sensitive child such as Terese of Liseaux, he might be able to reveal himself with only 2-3 lbs of "pressure" whereas with a more worldly person such as St. Augustine or St. Francis, he needed to use several hundred pounds of "pressure" just to get their attention.

Augustine would not have been moved by the light touch that God used on Terese, and she might have been crushed by the approach used on St. Paul.

God knows just what we need even before we ask him.