1984 & A/S/K revisited

[Esquilax]

Not literally, no. But what else would you call a choice like this: "You can believe in me or not, you've got free will. But if you don't believe in me, I'm going to send you to a magical land full of pain and suffering when you die, and that'll never end." How can you possibly think that this choice is fair and balanced in any way? How is it that you're unable to see the threat there, the "gun" I was talking about?

If a criminal approached me and offered me a choice thusly: "You can give me your wallet or not, but if you don't I'm going to kneecap you," and I get kneecapped, would you think it's my fault? "What do you want from the guy? He told you what would happen if you didn't give him your wallet!"

The reality of the situation is that, according to your theology, I've been forced into a choice I never wanted, and given heavily punitive measures if I opt to choose one option. How can you possibly think this is consistent with actual free will?

You're comparing God to a criminal, God is not trying to rob you, He wants you to come into a relationship with Him, you don't have to. This entire universe belongs to God everything, even your life. He gave you your life and He has given you everything you have, what kind of criminal gives. Your rejection of His love is where one goes wrong.

So, essentially your answer to my question about the criminal is "yes, I would do exactly that." Hardly a surprising answer, you do see desperate to scrabble to the defense of your god and his every misbehavior. Awfully hard to keep up a rational conversation with someone who's doing that, though.

Also, could you maybe try to be less literal? I'm not implying that god is trying to rob anyone, but that the choice he's offering is just as weighted and unreasonable as the criminal's. In both scenarios you're being positioned to accept one option that you don't necessarily want via the threat of suffering if you choose the alternative.