ReasonableDoubt

LuvLuv,

I'm trying to figure out how it would be that one would be coerced to follow God just because his existence is made known definitively. I'd bet you don't use the same criteria when deciding to follow a law- or even one of the 10 Commandments. Although it's true that ignorance of the law is not a legal excuse when charged with a crime, all laws must be clearly spelled out by the legislature and they are available for anyone to read. A citizen is presumed to know them.
Same with the Bible- it's there, it contains everything one needs to follow God. Nothing is hidden.
So why would definite proof of His existence be considered coercion any more than the definite existence of laws or of God's word?
Christians say the BIble is THE word of God. It's there, anyone can read and follow it. You don't say that it is coercive, do you?
Looking back at the Old Testament, God routinely revealed himself to his people, of course, most specifically to the leaders of the Jews. The Jews followed God through the desert when he was visibly there in the form of a cloud or fire by night. Even so they repeatedly rejected God and turned to other gods (even Moses' own brother created the golden calf for the Israelites to worship.)
So if these people who actually had God revealing Himself to them constantly could still choose to reject God and not be coerced, wouldn't that be true now?

luvluv

Reasonable Doubt:

Well, there is a difference between being in the presence of the word of God, which you can believe or disbelieve as you see fit, and being undeniably in the presence of Almighty God. That's a big difference, wouldn't you say?

Well, that's apples and oranges for a lot of reasons. First, it doesn't follow that any of the Isrealites actively disbelieved in God when they followed the other gods, but being as they were steeped in the tradition of polytheism they had no problem with asking other gods for help if the god of the moment was not answering their call right away. We'd all still disobey God occasionally even if He were present, but we wouldn't really be free in any sense.

Think of it as a totalitarian society. Now, even in such a society people still bad mouth the king, ocassionally break the law, and engage in random acts of resistance. But, just because the boldest of us can break the law even in the face of the most daunting consequences, does that make the rest of us truly FREE? I would think not. In a totalitarian society the fact that exceptionally brave (or stupid) people could defy a Hitler or a Saddam Hussein does not make the rest of the people in the society free.

Now, I'm not comparing God to Saddam Hussein. God is obviously not willing to create a totalitarian society, which is why we are having this conversation. But my point is if He did decide to do so, if He made his presence known, and if He decided to show you what was happening to people in Hell and people in Heaven if we asked, wouldn't that amount to coercion?

I'm also going to ask you to keep in mind that atheism was not a problem for probably 95% of the people who have ever lived, so this is not some deep flaw in God's plan. It is only the modern Western world who has problems with this as a result of evidentiary standards the modern Western world has invented which, whatever material advantage they may produce in terms of scientific knowledge and technological advancement, may not apply to the God question at all.

God's decision to only reveal Himself to us by faith has worked remarkably well in the history of the world so far as establishing some form of theistic belief.

ReasonableDoubt

"God's decision to only reveal Himself to us by faith has worked remarkably well in the history of the world so far as establishing some form of theistic belief."

Yes, but surely you can't deny that the vast majority of human beings who have ever lived on this planet have not been Jews or Christians. Even today many religions- Hinduism and Sikhism, some forms of Buddhism, etc. are polytheistic. I would agree that the vast majority of humans over the centuries have held to some form of religious belief.

You say if God were present that we wouldn't be free- as if the fact of His very existence would equate a totalitarian society. Why wouldn't God want everyone to know the truth, and then decide accordingly? Sure, probably many people would decide to worship Him out of fear, but isn't that the case now anyway? How many people would worship God if they did not believe in the threat of some sort of hell after death?

What you're saying is unbelievable to me. That it is better that God remain hidden to the vast majority of people, and consequently the vast majority of people are lost or in hell after death- than for God to fully reveal himself and have most people worship him because they feel obligated. That it is better to burn in hell for eternity than to worship him out of obligation.

Now this isn't an argument that God does not exist. Not at all- of course God does not have to reveal Himself if he does not so choose. But it just makes me question His fairness.

luvluv

No.

Plenty. I think the biggest reason for theistic belief is the search for ultimate meaning. I think this is theism's biggest selling point. You'd already have to be a believer to believe in hell, so hell can't be the support of belief. I think that is an anachronistic and parochial critique, frankly. Might have been true before the Reformation in Western Europe, and in other pockets of the world in other times, but it isn't true of religion generally.

But what you are declining to include in your assesment is that most people in the world manage to believe in Him, or in whatever manifestation most closely resembles Him in their part of the world. God has a remarkable success rate for inspiring belief in Him despite the fact that He does not openly reveal Himself. Is this not itself pretty good evidence for His existence? How could this have come to happen to creatures who exist only by blind natural processes in a Godless universe? How did so many people come to so sincere a conviction that they have touched the divine?

At any rate, I personally believe that the majority of sincere religious adherents around the world will not be condemned for having the wrong conception of the divine and submitting to that idea. I think they will all have the opportunity to hear the truth, or perhaps they will be judged on how they responded to the truth that they were presented with. But I feel you are mistaken if you believe that God's decision to be reached by faith has had enormous success in inspiring belief considering the fact that He cannot be directly perceived by our senses. It just isn't true that the majority of mankind is going to hell because they disbelieve in the divine. The majority of mankind believes in the divine. And I don't think it is clear Biblically that those who have the wrong concept of the divine are necessarily going to hell if they are truly open to the correction of that concept.

ReasonableDoubt

LuvLuv,

I'm sorry- I had gotten the impression that you were a traditional Christian, believing in all the traditional positions of the Church- such as hell, the exclusiveness of Christianity, etc. In all the biblical passages that support hell's existence. I suppose if you believe in a type of Universalism and no hell, the argument is changed. B/c then obviously it doesn't matter what one believes or does other than for the physical ramifications and consequences of your actions that occur on this earth.

Funny, I"ve had a lot of conversations with many Christians who said they would not be a Christian if they did not believe in hell. The argument was, why, if there's no "justice'', don't you just do whatever you want now? As long as you can get away with it?

On this Board I've seen the argument too, like in the Abduction one about the orphanage- that the children who die receive justice in the afterlife?

And the divine? Are you saying whatever one believes is divine is the actual Judeo-Christian God? So a Muslim, a Hindu, a pantheist, a witch, a Mormon, etc. all worship the same God? If so you are clearly a universalist, which is fine, but did not seem to be the position you've been taking before.

luvluv

I'm not quite a Universalist. I believe that we are redeemed through Christ's sacrifice. I believe that sacrifice is for everyone, and so some sort of provision will probably be made for those who have not believed through honest ignorance. That doesn't mean that everyone will be saved, however. There are plenty of people in America, for one, who believe the Christian story and yet who have refused to accept Christ. Most non-Christians in this country are not atheists. They are believing theists who do not want to commit themselves to the full implications of fully devoted worship.