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.

---

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.

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

---

merriam-webster.com

British English Dictionary

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
[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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

Of course. Because it IS nice.

Would be if there were a god.

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.

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.

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"?

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[Ravenshire]

And here lies the greatest problem with discussing anything about gawd with a christer. There is nothing their gawd can do that they can't construe as good, because they get to make up his motives for him. Coercing Jonah into obeying is ok because gawd was "doing a GOOD thing by saving Jonah's life." Ordering the slaughter of the Canaanites was ok because they were evil and gawd had promised that land to the Israelites. Firebombing an entire population is ok, "cuz they was wicked!!!" Destroying the entire fucking world is just fucking dandy because of the "wickedness" of every extant human being (including newborn infants) except, of course, for Noah and his family. Hell, even generations of incest, not once, but twice, seems to be perfectly acceptable despite the majority of christers abhorring the practice as immoral.

The fact that Christians have reasonable explanations for all your silly objections really sticks in your craw, doesn't it?

Get over it.

And here lies the second greatest problem with discussing anything about gawd with a christer. The fact that they think their explanations for atrocities are somehow reasonable.

No Randy, it doesn't stick in my craw. I just find myself dumbstruck whenever one of you christers whip out yet another weak explanation for an atrocity that you would be condemning if it were attributed to anyone else.

[Ravenshire]

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

Then why are those of us who sought, indeed in some cases begged, still atheists? You've nicely reiterated my point that your gawd (if it exists) knows exactly what evidence it would take to convince every one of us and it could do it without violating our "free will." Yet, here we are.

[Pyrrho]

The fact that Christians have reasonable explanations for all your silly objections really sticks in your craw, doesn't it?

Get over it.

And here lies the second greatest problem with discussing anything about gawd with a christer. The fact that they think their explanations for atrocities are somehow reasonable.

No Randy, it doesn't stick in my craw. I just find myself dumbstruck whenever one of you christers whip out yet another weak explanation for an atrocity that you would be condemning if it were attributed to anyone else.

There is an informal fallacy that does not get enough attention.  But you should recognize it in your opponent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

Some Christians are masters of the "big lie."

[Jenny A]

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.

I don't care what you think about him if you can't show he exists.  And this particular explanation for the lack of evidence of god, causes all my bullshit buzzers to go off simultaneously.

[robvalue]

How come Tim O'Neil and Bart Ehrman are still atheists?

We're always being told how they understand all the evidence far better than us, and they have concluded there is a historical Jesus. We're all just being stubborn if we'd question it for a second.

However, even with their deep understanding of all the evidence, they still do not believe the God of the bible exists. What can we learn from that I wonder? Does the Christian throw them under the bus at this point as stupid and unrealiable?

Also, if God is so against influencing our decisions in whether or not to believe in him, why is he fine with his followers constantly attempting to brow beat us into belief? I can only conclude from this that he wants us to believe in him while there is no evidence to do so. Then he will "reveal" himself. The problem is, that is the very definition of a delusion. Believing something when there's no reason to believe it. So we already have to be literally deluded before we can see the "evidence". And I don't trust the judgement of people who are deluded on a particular subject. It's far more likely to be just a continuation of that delusion, when they can't present me with any evidence.

Why does God want deluded followers? What does that say about him?

Someone trying to convince me of something based on no evidence is a con artist. Whether or not they're aware they are a con artist is a different matter.