Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duck! · 04-13-2002, 01:58 PM

Okay, I'll redo my analogy.

"I'm going to shoot you in the head if you don't do what I tell you. This is not intimidation, this is merely a warning about the consequences of your actions. And by the the way, a couple of thousand years ago I helped dozens of humans write a 1000 page book which was compiled over several centuries and explains everything including why telling people that they'll suffer eternally in hell for doing certain things isn't intimidation. It should be all perfectly clear. I just hope you're lucky enough to be born into the right type of family and community that will have copies of said book and will encourage you to read it and interpret in the way I want you to.

Yours faithfully,
Loving and Omnipotent God."

Duck!

Duck! · 04-13-2002, 02:05 PM

"p.s. There's loads of books written over thousands of years, all of which claim to be written by me or inspired by me. It's up to you to be born in to the right religious community so that you have access to the right religious documents. And if you're not, then you'll have to shake off the religious indoctrination drilled in to you as a child, find the proper documents, read them and interpret them correctly.

Otherwise I'm gonna shoot you in the head."

Duck!

madmax2976 · 04-13-2002, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
Coercion: any incentive, positive or negative, which has the effect of causing a person to obey (or disobey) God based more on the incentive than on the love of (or faith in) God.

Sigh. Was this supposed to be objective criteria for determining what is to be considered coercive or not? I certainly hope not.

Luvluv, coercion is a subjective thing. What one person finds coercive may not be coercive to someone else and vice versa. I again challenge you to present any objective standards for what is or is not coercive.

I also challenge you to present any scenario that is coercive and yet lacks consequences. Likewise, please present a scenario that has undesirable consequences yet someone shouldn't feel coerced by those consequences.

I hope your not being purposely obtuse about all this.

Pomp · 04-13-2002, 04:47 PM

luvluv,

I realize that you're probably a bit bogged down replying to everyone but, when you have time, could you take a shot at what is, to my mind, the central question in this thread? I'll repeat it for you:

I see no reason, however, to prefer a child who is born a selfish ass and has to learn how to function as a pleasant human being to a child who is simply born a pleasant human being. According to you, Yahweh seems to disagree with me, and I am curious as to why you seem to think that.

Wizardry · 04-13-2002, 09:44 PM

Quote:

luvluv: Coercion: any incentive, positive or negative, which has the effect of causing a person to obey (or disobey) God based more on the incentive than on the love of (or faith in) God.

Heaven and hell are coercive elements in that they can alter a person�s decision about whether or not to obey God. In fact, Pascal�s Wager is based on that very fact.

You argue that God wants people to choose to obey him solely on the basis of a love of or faith in God, without coercion.

The problem with that argument is that the sources that attest to God�s love are the exact same sources that tell us of Heaven and Hell. To be consistant, if God�s love is accepted as factually existing, the existence of Heaven and Hell must similarly be accepted as factual. The existential status of God�s love and Heaven and Hell are the same. It is therefore impossible to obey God based on his love without simultaneously being coerced by the existence of Heaven and Hell.

If you allow God�s love to inform your opinion as to whether or not to follow him, Heaven and Hell must similarly inform your opinion. This is contrary to your initial premise. Therefore, your argument fails.

Peace out.

luvluv · 04-15-2002, 02:56 PM

Pompous:

"I see no reason, however, to prefer a child who is born a selfish ass and has to learn how to function as a pleasant human being to a child who is simply born a pleasant human being. According to you, Yahweh seems to disagree with me, and I am curious as to why you seem to think that. "

Well, I think some children are born like that, but there is a large difference between being born with a sweet disposition and being born incapable of sin. I think if God were to purposely create creatures who from the outset had no ability to sin (that's what we are talking about, not about being "pleasant") then that would be an obvious infringement on free will. Some of us, as a result of our natures and experiences, simply are not "pleasant" people.

I don't think pleasantness really has anything to do with it, however. We are talking about morality. There are some people who are personally polite and very mild-mannered who are nonetheless notorious cheats, frauds, murderers, etc. I mean aside from the fact that he occasionally killed people, Ted Kacsinsky (sp?) seemed like an amiable fellow. Likewise somebody could have a bad temper but a good heart.

So to answer your question, I don't see why God would mind some people being born with a more obedient spirit than others (obviously some are) but to mandate that all of us were born with totally obedient spirits would be another issue altogether.

ON THE DOCTRINE OF HELL AND COERCION:

Firstly, I do not agree that coercion is totally subjective. No doubt that some folks would risk more than others, but as a general rule human beings do not enjoy suffering or being killed. True, there may be some people on earth who would not be intimidated by a man with a gun who has the full intention of shooting them dead if they do not obey him. I'd wager though, that those people would comprise a small minority of the people on the planet. I think fear of suffering or death is a common enough phenomenon that we can consider it an almost universal human characteristic. Now if Hell is really as bad as we conceive it to be, I doubt that anyone could witness it in reality and not be coerced one way or the other.

I explained my position on Hell several times on other boards but I think it deserves clarification.

When I say that God is unwilling to use coercion, as I explained with my definition above, I am arguing that God would not use an incentive whose appeal is so great that it alone would motivate a decision for or against Him.

Now, I consider a revealed knowledge of Hell to be something that would be coercive thusly. Can we agree that if all of us were able to see Hell and the torment occuring there (whether it be imposed or a consequence), and if we had it under believable authority that this place is where we would end up should we choose not to believe in God, can we agree that such a sight would have an effect on our decisions?

Now at the same time, the doctrine of Hell, as opposed to the sight of Hell, is oftentimes a consideration in one's decision to convert to Christianity, but it is generally not the determining factor. (I think before you guys can just decide that most of the Christians who believe do so out of a fear of punishment, you should ask a few Christians if that is actually the case.)

I would also argue that in order for something to be coercive, the threat of it would have to be real to the person under the threat. The more real and the more dangerous the threat, the more coercive it will be. Thus, the distant, threat of hell is much less coercive than a revealed Hell because of it's credibility. One can choose not to believe in hell at this point in time.

Thus you will have to admit that the doctrine of Hell, at the very least is not AS coercive as a revealed Hell. Can we admit that the doctrine of Hell has failed to coerce anyone in this room (myself included, believe it or not). But can we also admit that a revealed Hell would generally speaking coerce EVERYONE in this room?

Mageth · 04-15-2002, 03:12 PM

Not according to Luke 16, in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. Even one rising from the dead to tell his brothers first-hand of their potential fate (and thus "revealing" hell, I would assume) would not be believed.

luvluv · 04-15-2002, 04:45 PM

Key words: "tell"... not shown, and "believed" .... not have definite knowledge of.

There are people who claim to have been clinically dead and experienced hell and who have written books about their experience. But nobody 'BELIEVES' these stories precisely because they are not objectively provable. You have to believe them by faith. So I would say that Abraham was right about the parable.

[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-17-2002, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv: When I say that God is unwilling to use coercion, as I explained with my definition above, I am arguing that God would not use an incentive whose appeal is so great that it alone would motivate a decision for or against Him.

Un hunh...

I'm sorry, luvluv that you so detest the actual words of the Bible, but I'm afraid you'll have to go through the following to explain just exactly how it is anyone who actually reads the Bible is not supposed to come away with the inescapable feeling that one should fear God before just about any other consideration.

If you do not see the following as evidence of direct, overt fear-based coercion then you are a living miracle, as the authors are quite clear on this matter:

Quote:

Deuteronomy 6:13
Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.

Deuteronomy 8:6
Therefore thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to fear him.

Deuteronomy 10:12
And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul

Before loving him, no less!

Quote:

Deuteronomy 10:20
Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.

Deuteronomy 13:4
Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

Fear, obey, serve, cleave. What is it that God is telling us through his inspired servants here?

Quote:

Joshua 24:14
Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD.

This next one is baffling, but clearly coercive:

Quote:

1 Samuel 12:14
If ye will fear the LORD, and serve him, and obey his voice, and not rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then shall both ye and also the king that reigneth over you continue following the LORD your God:

2 Kings 17:36
But the LORD, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt with great power and a stretched out arm, him shall ye fear, and him shall ye worship, and to him shall ye do sacrifice.

Remember poor old Job? You couldn't get a more clear indication of what God wants from his "perfect and upright" men:

Quote:

Job 1:8
And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

Job 25:2
Dominion and fear are with him, he maketh peace in his high places.

Job 37:24
Men do therefore fear him: he respecteth not any that are wise of heart.

So much for Job's free will, eh?

Why, is there any more evidence of fear-based coercion?

Yes. Yes there is...

Quote:

Psalm 25:12
What man is he that feareth the LORD? him shall he teach in the way that he shall choose.

Psalm 25:14
The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.

Psalm 33:18
Behold, the eye of the LORD is upon them that fear him, upon them that hope in his mercy;

Psalm 34:7
The angel of the LORD encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them.

Psalm 34:9
O fear the LORD, ye his saints: for there is no want to them that fear him.

Psalm 103:11
For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him.

Psalm 103:17
But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children;

Psalm 111:5
He hath given meat unto them that fear him: he will ever be mindful of his covenant.

Psalm 145:19
He will fulfil the desire of them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them.

So, what does one get if one fears God?
<ol type="1">[*] he gets taught whatever he wants to be taught[*] he gets shewn God's covenant (the big keys)[*] he gets the eye of the Lord upon him (quite an honorable spotlight)[*] he gets the Angel of the Lord to protect and deliver him[*] he will have no want[*] everlasting mercy[*] he gets meat (sorry vegans)[*] his desires will be fulfilled[*] prayers heard[*] salvation[/list=a]

Well, that's just Psalm...anything else as a direct result of fearing God?

Quote:

Ecclesiastes 8:12
Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and his days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear before him.

Isaiah 11:3
And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD:

Malachi 3:16-17
16 Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name.
17 And they shall be mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.

Holy shit!

But no fear-based coercion is going on, eh, luvluv?

Riiiiiigghhhttt...

But, can we really be certain that God--directly--wants us to fear him? That just seems to be so...so...contradictory, doesn't it?

Let's see if it's true:

Quote:

Psalm 33:8
Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.

Psalm 67:7
God shall bless us; and all the ends of the earth shall fear him.

Psalm 89:7
God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him.

Ok, ok, I get it, but why? What does God get out of all of this forced fear?

Quote:

Psalm 147:11
The LORD taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his mercy.

So, God takes pleasure from our fear? That can't be the whole purpose of existence! It just can't be!

Quote:

Ecclesiastes 3:14
I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

That prick!

But, surely, that was just the OT God, the Original Gangsta God, right? Let's see what is to be feared in the NT, with the "new and improved" God lite version:

Quote:

Matthew 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul:

Oh, good...

Quote:

MORE: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Holy shit, again! Luke, Luke...say it isn't so, Luke...he's your father Luke!

Quote:

Luke 12:5
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE! God's supposed to be merciful and just and loving...

Quote:

Luke 1:50
And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.

No! No more fear...no more fear...please....I beg you...

Quote:

Revelation 14:7
Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

I...don't know how to love him...(cue music)

Quote:

Revelation 19:5
And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.

So, the exact same horse poo is found in the NT as was littered throughout the OT.

The inescable conclusion? Fear God and you will win every single thing off the top shelf (except of course for the "Cocain" mirror with the word "Cocain" written like the Coca-Cola logo. Those are reserved for Lynyrd Skynner).

But it's good to see that there isn't any fear-based coercion that would motivate a decision for or against Him going on in the Bible.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]

hezekiah jones · 04-17-2002, 11:21 AM

rofl

04-15-2002, 04:45 PM	#48
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Key words: "tell"... not shown, and "believed" .... not have definite knowledge of. There are people who claim to have been clinically dead and experienced hell and who have written books about their experience. But nobody 'BELIEVES' these stories precisely because they are not objectively provable. You have to believe them by faith. So I would say that Abraham was right about the parable. [ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-13-2002, 01:58 PM	#41
Duck! Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Ireland Posts: 3,647	Okay, I'll redo my analogy. "I'm going to shoot you in the head if you don't do what I tell you. This is not intimidation, this is merely a warning about the consequences of your actions. And by the the way, a couple of thousand years ago I helped dozens of humans write a 1000 page book which was compiled over several centuries and explains everything including why telling people that they'll suffer eternally in hell for doing certain things isn't intimidation. It should be all perfectly clear. I just hope you're lucky enough to be born into the right type of family and community that will have copies of said book and will encourage you to read it and interpret in the way I want you to. Yours faithfully, Loving and Omnipotent God." Duck!

04-13-2002, 02:05 PM	#42
Duck! Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Ireland Posts: 3,647	"p.s. There's loads of books written over thousands of years, all of which claim to be written by me or inspired by me. It's up to you to be born in to the right religious community so that you have access to the right religious documents. And if you're not, then you'll have to shake off the religious indoctrination drilled in to you as a child, find the proper documents, read them and interpret them correctly. Otherwise I'm gonna shoot you in the head." Duck!

04-13-2002, 04:47 PM	#44
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	luvluv, I realize that you're probably a bit bogged down replying to everyone but, when you have time, could you take a shot at what is, to my mind, the central question in this thread? I'll repeat it for you: I see no reason, however, to prefer a child who is born a selfish ass and has to learn how to function as a pleasant human being to a child who is simply born a pleasant human being. According to you, Yahweh seems to disagree with me, and I am curious as to why you seem to think that.

04-15-2002, 02:56 PM	#46
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Pompous: "I see no reason, however, to prefer a child who is born a selfish ass and has to learn how to function as a pleasant human being to a child who is simply born a pleasant human being. According to you, Yahweh seems to disagree with me, and I am curious as to why you seem to think that. " Well, I think some children are born like that, but there is a large difference between being born with a sweet disposition and being born incapable of sin. I think if God were to purposely create creatures who from the outset had no ability to sin (that's what we are talking about, not about being "pleasant") then that would be an obvious infringement on free will. Some of us, as a result of our natures and experiences, simply are not "pleasant" people. I don't think pleasantness really has anything to do with it, however. We are talking about morality. There are some people who are personally polite and very mild-mannered who are nonetheless notorious cheats, frauds, murderers, etc. I mean aside from the fact that he occasionally killed people, Ted Kacsinsky (sp?) seemed like an amiable fellow. Likewise somebody could have a bad temper but a good heart. So to answer your question, I don't see why God would mind some people being born with a more obedient spirit than others (obviously some are) but to mandate that all of us were born with totally obedient spirits would be another issue altogether. ON THE DOCTRINE OF HELL AND COERCION: Firstly, I do not agree that coercion is totally subjective. No doubt that some folks would risk more than others, but as a general rule human beings do not enjoy suffering or being killed. True, there may be some people on earth who would not be intimidated by a man with a gun who has the full intention of shooting them dead if they do not obey him. I'd wager though, that those people would comprise a small minority of the people on the planet. I think fear of suffering or death is a common enough phenomenon that we can consider it an almost universal human characteristic. Now if Hell is really as bad as we conceive it to be, I doubt that anyone could witness it in reality and not be coerced one way or the other. I explained my position on Hell several times on other boards but I think it deserves clarification. When I say that God is unwilling to use coercion, as I explained with my definition above, I am arguing that God would not use an incentive whose appeal is so great that it alone would motivate a decision for or against Him. Now, I consider a revealed knowledge of Hell to be something that would be coercive thusly. Can we agree that if all of us were able to see Hell and the torment occuring there (whether it be imposed or a consequence), and if we had it under believable authority that this place is where we would end up should we choose not to believe in God, can we agree that such a sight would have an effect on our decisions? Now at the same time, the doctrine of Hell, as opposed to the sight of Hell, is oftentimes a consideration in one's decision to convert to Christianity, but it is generally not the determining factor. (I think before you guys can just decide that most of the Christians who believe do so out of a fear of punishment, you should ask a few Christians if that is actually the case.) I would also argue that in order for something to be coercive, the threat of it would have to be real to the person under the threat. The more real and the more dangerous the threat, the more coercive it will be. Thus, the distant, threat of hell is much less coercive than a revealed Hell because of it's credibility. One can choose not to believe in hell at this point in time. Thus you will have to admit that the doctrine of Hell, at the very least is not AS coercive as a revealed Hell. Can we admit that the doctrine of Hell has failed to coerce anyone in this room (myself included, believe it or not). But can we also admit that a revealed Hell would generally speaking coerce EVERYONE in this room?

04-15-2002, 03:12 PM	#47
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Not according to Luke 16, in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. Even one rising from the dead to tell his brothers first-hand of their potential fate (and thus "revealing" hell, I would assume) would not be believed.

04-17-2002, 11:21 AM	#50
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	rofl

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.