Why worship a "god" that threatens you?

[OpiatefortheMasses]

I'm reasonably sure that to extort something from someone else would constitute a sin of some kind according to most Christians but why is it OK when the very religion itself employs it? Most of the Christians I've talked to over the years would describe their "god" as fair, just, loving etc. but extortion (among other things) really strikes me as cruel and manipulative. Is this a "god" that's truly worthy of a person's worship or adoration?

[ttruscott]

a) you would have to demonstrate how not believing you actually "creates evil" because doubting a wild claim is only natural.

Evil is created by free will rejection of GOD.

The ability to choose to perfectly love by a free will choice must be matched by the ability to chose unrelenting hate for it to be a true choice. This choice to self create our eternal future was available to us all before the proof was given that ended our free will as it destroyed our freedom from coercion by concern for our self interest.

We chose the kind of universe we most desired without proof but by hope (ie faith). Some folk chose the opposite. Oh well.

b) There would be no illusion that you "loved" me if you're offering me ultimatums.

Who said HE loved you before our true free will choice? Not me. Please don't lay no boojee woojee on the king of rock and roll!

If you are asking how I reconcile these thoughts, I accept but I don't accept being tarred with the errors of others.

Peace, Ted

[OpiatefortheMasses]

I believe that I am missing your point because my definition of coercion by the Almighty is that it can't be resisted but you seem to take great pride in resisting the coercion GOD offers you?

It could be that I don't respond well to threats or the fact that I wouldn't deliberately manipulate someone I cared about the way "god" does to followers. Also, anyone can say no to anything so saying something is irresistible is purely subjective.

Anyway, I offer the free will choice as a true choice without irresistable coercion and all you can say is prove it?

Sorry no can do; above my pay grade; better get onto GOD for that.

Then there's really no legitimate reason to believe it. If I told you invisible dragons ruled the skies you'd likely dismiss that, correct? If all I had to offer you in the way of evidence was my word and an ancient book that mentions invisible dragons I think you'd probably also dismiss it. Doubt simply keeps us from being gullible which is why I think nothing is above questioning.

[OpiatefortheMasses]

Evil is created by free will rejection of GOD.

The ability to choose to perfectly love by a free will choice must be matched by the ability to chose unrelenting hate for it to be a true choice. This choice to self create our eternal future was available to us all before the proof was given that ended our free will as it destroyed our freedom from coercion by concern for our self interest.

We chose the kind of universe we most desired without proof but by hope (ie faith). Some folk chose the opposite. Oh well.

Well, at that point I would say that's merely your opinion (which you're entitled to) since there's no way you could demonstrate how that assertion is true. Also, it simply doesn't boil down to love and hate either. Just because a person chooses not to believe in your "god" doesn't mean they hate your "god". Doubt does not equate to hate. There's a clear distinction between the two.

Who said HE loved you before our true free will choice? Not me. Please don't lay no boojee woojee on the king of rock and roll!

So your version of "god" isn't doesn't love everybody?

If you are asking how I reconcile these thoughts, I accept but I don't accept being tarred with the errors of others.

It's hard to if anyone is "in error" when it comes down to "god" or "gods" since it's all unfalsifiable at this point. Either one of us could be wrong.

[ttruscott]

I think God did not love anyone before our free will choice but did love those who chose to fulfil HIS plan for their creation and does not love those who refused to fulfill HIS plan for their creation.

Verses usually interpretated to mean HE loves everyone can be held to apply only to HIS elect and ignore the verses which say HE hates some people.

And "It's hard to if anyone is "in error" when it comes down to "god" or "gods" since it's all unfalsifiable at this point. Either one of us could be wrong." is quite right from your perspective but

I claim to have been given the proof I need in the spirit, but that is a proof you reject, <shrug>. A regular black swan event, I suppose.

Peace, Ted

[Goat]

I believe that I am missing your point because my definition of coercion by the Almighty is that it can't be resisted but you seem to take great pride in resisting the coercion GOD offers you?

Anyway, I offer the free will choice as a true choice without irresistable coercion and all you can say is prove it?

Sorry no can do; above my pay grade; better get onto GOD for that.

Peace, Ted

Funny thing. .. according to the Christian religion, 1/3 of the angels knew God directly, yet rebelled anyway. That is in a direct contradiction to your definition and assumptions. ..

[ttruscott]

I believe that I am missing your point because my definition of coercion by the Almighty is that it can't be resisted but you seem to take great pride in resisting the coercion GOD offers you?

Anyway, I offer the free will choice as a true choice without irresistable coercion and all you can say is prove it?

Sorry no can do; above my pay grade; better get onto GOD for that.

Peace, Ted

Funny thing. .. according to the Christian religion, 1/3 of the angels knew God directly, yet rebelled anyway. That is in a direct contradiction to your definition and assumptions. ..

Not according to the Christian religion at all, Sir Goat...merely according to some people and disputed by more. Anyway we all knew GOD directly, just without HIS glory...is that not proven in your story?

Please tell me more about your definitions and assumptions? Hmmmm?

[dusk]

Your bit

If one chooses not to follow a false god he is not aware of the truth that it is actually a true real god.
and vice versa
If one chooses to follow the perfect god, he is not aware of the fact that it is a false god.
add #3
If one chooses another god, he probably does so based on the knowledge that the first god is a false god and that there is another true god.

is asking for proof of the knowlege you have been given and proof cannot be given or it coerces choice.

Of course you don't know - that is why you must choose the kind of life YOU want... the proof of the life does does not force you to choose it.

And before I read further, this happened in sheol, the spirit world, before the creation of the physical universe and the theology is usually called Pre-Conceptiuon Existence Theology, PCE.

Granted I didn't quite understand that you are here trying to show some true free will choice. Probably because I don't think such a thing exists nor has any meaning if it does. I wouldn't call it a choice anymore.

I studied Information Systems & Knowledge managment. What you call knowledge is just information and a rather meaningless one. That is NOT knowledge. Read Nonaka & Takeuchi or just the definition on Wikipedia which is a bit old fashioned but good enough.
I am not asking for perfect proof but you have to give one something to base a choice on otherwise it is just rolling the dice and nobody is responsible but the dice for how they fall.

The Elements of a True Free Will Choice:
1. Free will can't be coerced:
Nothing in their created nature could force them to choose love or hate, good or evil.
Nothing in their experience could force them to choose love or hate, good or evil.
Nothing in their understanding or knowledge of reality could force them to choose good or evil, love or hate.

In other words, they had to be completely and truly ingenuously innocent.
2. Consequences must be known but not proved:

2. The person must understand the full consequences of their choice or it is a guess, not a choice. “What will happen if I choose left or right, the red pill or the blue pill?� must be answered in full detail.
But "PROOF" of the nature of the consequence would compel or coerce the person to choose what was proven to be the best for them. If the answer “death here,� “life there,� was proven, which would you choose? The weight of knowledge would destroy the effect of a true ‘free will’ choice.
Therefore they must know, but without proof, the nature of the consequences of their choice. Such a choice, might be described as making a choice based on faith and hope.

The problem is #2 as I see it.
You cannot know anything without some experience about what it is, some understand of what it means. The stuff in #1 makes it impossible to know anything. Whatever so called unproven knowledge one hands somebody in #2 would be no knowledge but just meaningless information that one cannot base a choice on.
It is like I tell you
"Please decide between A and B", "A has the attributes X,Y" and B has the attributes Z,V.", "this is all I can say or I might coerce you to one decision".
Without experience or understanding what Z,V,X,Y is you don't know anything about A,B. You have been handed information not knowledge. Information can be entirely meaningless as this one is and it will just be a rolling of the dice if you choose at all.

You see perfect proof is not needed but still something and that little something is the base of the choice. I don't know where you got that definition from but it just makes no sense at all. It invalidates itself.

Your phrase: "What one wants depends on what they believe to be true"...should in fact be What one wants depends on what they hope to be true because without the proof, their belief will have the qualities of faith, as hope, not the quality of belief based on experential fact.

Okay rephrase it if you want but "What one hopes, depends on their understanding of the reality they are hoping for."
You don't want either A or B, or are entirely indifferent towards it if you have no understanding of either. And whatever that understanding of either may be it does coerce you to choose something.

Say my understanding of eternal life in heaven is
- eternal boredom
- eternal bliss
will very much coerce me one way. If I have no knowledge about either I will naturally choose bliss, because and here it comes
I do have an understanding of bliss and boredom and only if I was entirely irrational would I choose boredom. Therefore I hope for bliss. Or if there is the 3rd choice of "no eternal life at all", I might based on experience/character prefer the safe way. Before risking eternal boredom for a 50:50 on bliss I rather be safe and hope for a quick end.

It is no choice unless you base it on something. This true free will is a meaningless term. There is no such thing unless you define a few things away.

[Goat]

I believe that I am missing your point because my definition of coercion by the Almighty is that it can't be resisted but you seem to take great pride in resisting the coercion GOD offers you?

Anyway, I offer the free will choice as a true choice without irresistable coercion and all you can say is prove it?

Sorry no can do; above my pay grade; better get onto GOD for that.

Peace, Ted

Funny thing. .. according to the Christian religion, 1/3 of the angels knew God directly, yet rebelled anyway. That is in a direct contradiction to your definition and assumptions. ..

Not according to the Christian religion at all, Sir Goat...merely according to some people and disputed by more. Anyway we all knew GOD directly, just without HIS glory...is that not proven in your story?

Please tell me more about your definitions and assumptions? Hmmmm?

Is it?? I got that from the Revelation of John. That seems to be the standard interpretation.

Do you know so much better than the rest of Christianity?? Can you prove it?

[OpiatefortheMasses]

I think God did not love anyone before our free will choice but did love those who chose to fulfil HIS plan for their creation and does not love those who refused to fulfill HIS plan for their creation.

That seems kind of selfish and petty. You make it sound as though your "god" only loves the obedient which tells me he's incapable of unconditional love. That's also reaffirmed with the fact that you seem to believe he doesn't love people who can't help him "fulfill his plan". You also make it sound as though "god" needs us in order fulfill that "plan" which implies a dependence of sorts. Can the "plan" fail?

Verses usually interpretated to mean HE loves everyone can be held to apply only to HIS elect and ignore the verses which say HE hates some people.

I'm sure there are plenty of other denominations that would disagree but then again Christianity isn't exactly unified under a single banner.

And "It's hard to if anyone is "in error" when it comes down to "god" or "gods" since it's all unfalsifiable at this point. Either one of us could be wrong." is quite right from your perspective but

I claim to have been given the proof I need in the spirit, but that is a proof you reject, <shrug>. A regular black swan event, I suppose.

True, we do have different standards when it comes down to evidence.

[ttruscott]

Good morning Goat:

Is it?? I got that from the Revelation of John. That seems to be the standard interpretation.

it is an interpretation all right but I have no idea if it is standard... but it definately has not been proven.

Peace, Ted