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]

...

So if I held a gun to your head and told you "worship me or else I shoot" I'm not in any way threatening you but rather just telling you the "truth"?

A gun to the head would be a coercion of my will.

God wants people who can love and engage HIM in holy communion. Love, holiness and worship are all products of a free will only. If there was any coercion at all, no love could be felt or shared.

BUT,
IF I told you that your choice was to worship me or your rejection would be to create evil for which you would be judged,

without offering any proof that I was GOD, or that I had any power at all and without showing any "gun" or threat except my words,

just how shivering scared would you be?

Not too much, I don't think:
1. He has not proven he has the power to damn or to bless.
2. He has not proven that his love is greater than our own.
3. He has not proven himself to be our creator and therefore worthy of extra worship.

You would be completely free to do what you wanted, accept HIS line or reject it.

And that is why I believe that is what happened; it is too perfect to ignore.

Peace, Ted

In the above scenario, God has given man literally no reason to believe him. And on the basis of a completely uninformed and unmotivated choice rest mans salvation or eternal damnation? God would have to be completely off his rocker to setup a universe this way.

The above scenario was not a scenario but a skimpy intro to a whole theology put in such a way as to answer one corner of one question...

Of course it was inadequate.

Far from being the "a completely uninformed and unmotivated choice" you profer, in our true free will choice in sheol we learned:
- the FULL CONSEQUENCES for rejecting these people who claimed to be GOD, if they ever proved they were indeed GOD including their judgment to damnation and all the suffering that entails.

- the FULL CONSEQUENCES for accepting these three as GOD including their election to heaven, the gospel promise to save them if they should ever fall into sin, and their subsequent life on a reform planet in a human body if they should fall into sin.

Knowledge and motivation all in one package, nice.

Since to make this work, GOD had to hide HIS divinity and glory, the decision to bow in worship or to reject HIM had to be made on faith by hope:
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Learning the full details of the (supposed, if he was God) consequences of our decision made the choice a true choice and not just a guess. But knowing these (supposed, if he was God) consequences gave us a framework from which we could choose,

choose which kind of life we wanted to have, which kind of life we hoped to have by making this choice:

1. a life with a GOD who was perfect and created us to join HIM in that perfection and in loving holy communion forever
or
2. a life in which we were just as important as this false god, better in fact because we were not liars about ourselves. A life in which we are our own GOD and our laws and our love is the epitomé of perfection. A life in which we bow to no one.

And so we chose...and then all free uncoerced choice ended when HE gave us the proof of HIS full glory and power when HE created the universe and every knee did bow and every mouth did sing HIS praise.

Is that a bit more full? Full enough?

Peace, Ted

[Metatron]

...

So if I held a gun to your head and told you "worship me or else I shoot" I'm not in any way threatening you but rather just telling you the "truth"?

A gun to the head would be a coercion of my will.

God wants people who can love and engage HIM in holy communion. Love, holiness and worship are all products of a free will only. If there was any coercion at all, no love could be felt or shared.

BUT,
IF I told you that your choice was to worship me or your rejection would be to create evil for which you would be judged,

without offering any proof that I was GOD, or that I had any power at all and without showing any "gun" or threat except my words,

just how shivering scared would you be?

Not too much, I don't think:
1. He has not proven he has the power to damn or to bless.
2. He has not proven that his love is greater than our own.
3. He has not proven himself to be our creator and therefore worthy of extra worship.

You would be completely free to do what you wanted, accept HIS line or reject it.

And that is why I believe that is what happened; it is too perfect to ignore.

Peace, Ted

In the above scenario, God has given man literally no reason to believe him. And on the basis of a completely uninformed and unmotivated choice rest mans salvation or eternal damnation? God would have to be completely off his rocker to setup a universe this way.

The above scenario was not a scenario but a skimpy intro to a whole theology put in such a way as to answer one corner of one question...

Of course it was inadequate.

Far from being the "a completely uninformed and unmotivated choice" you profer, in our true free will choice in sheol we learned:
- the FULL CONSEQUENCES for rejecting these people who claimed to be GOD, if they ever proved they were indeed GOD including their judgment to damnation and all the suffering that entails.

- the FULL CONSEQUENCES for accepting these three as GOD including their election to heaven, the gospel promise to save them if they should ever fall into sin, and their subsequent life on a reform planet in a human body if they should fall into sin.

Knowledge and motivation all in one package, nice.

Since to make this work, GOD had to hide HIS divinity and glory, the decision to bow in worship or to reject HIM had to be made on faith by hope:
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Learning the full details of the (supposed, if he was God) consequences of our decision made the choice a true choice and not just a guess. But knowing these (supposed, if he was God) consequences gave us a framework from which we could choose,

choose which kind of life we wanted to have, which kind of life we hoped to have by making this choice:

1. a life with a GOD who was perfect and created us to join HIM in that perfection and in loving holy communion forever
or
2. a life in which we were just as important as this false god, better in fact because we were not liars about ourselves. A life in which we are our own GOD and our laws and our love is the epitomé of perfection. A life in which we bow to no one.

And so we chose...and then all free uncoerced choice ended when HE gave us the proof of HIS full glory and power when HE created the universe and every knee did bow and every mouth did sing HIS praise.

Is that a bit more full? Full enough?

Peace, Ted

Sorry, this still does not make a lick of sense to me.

1. How would anyone have known these consequences if God didn't tell them. Wouldn't he have been forced to reveal himself in some way to let them know these consequences exist?

2. You still didn't address the point that no one was given any reason to believe what God said was true given that he apparently appeared like everyone else in your scenario. Should people have assumed that any random person who claimed to be God should have been automatically believed just in case this person turned out to be God? What if two or more people had made this same claim? On what basis should they have chosen one over the other or anyone at all? And this ludicrous excuse for a "free will" choice determines whether you go to heaven or hell? This is perhaps the most unfair conception of salvation I've ever heard of.

[ttruscott]

Sorry, this still does not make a lick of sense to me.

1. How would anyone have known these consequences if God didn't tell them. Wouldn't he have been forced to reveal himself in some way to let them know these consequences exist?

2. You still didn't address the point that no one was given any reason to believe what God said was true given that he apparently appeared like everyone else in your scenario. Should people have assumed that any random person who claimed to be God should have been automatically believed just in case this person turned out to be God? What if two or more people had made this same claim? On what basis should they have chosen one over the other or anyone at all? And this ludicrous excuse for a "free will" choice determines whether you go to heaven or hell? This is perhaps the most unfair conception of salvation I've ever heard of.

1. Of course God told them. All he (THEY actually, because I am a trinitarian but HE will do in capacity as GOD) revealed was his opinion about himself the future and the consequences and anything else they had to know to make the choice a true choice made with full knowledge.

And no, HE hid HIS divinity, power and glory from us so he looked exactly the same as any of us.

To do other wise would have coerced our supposedly uncoerced (free) choice.

2. So? No one was given any reason to believe what God said was true...this bothers you exactly why? He told us he was our creator, is that what you mean? You don't seem to want a reason, you seem to be demanding proof.

Should people...? People should do what they want in this situation, which they did.

What if ...? What if humans lived on Mars...imaterial to our reality.

Please, don't judge my understanding by your lack of understanding.

On what basis should they have chosen one over the other or anyone at all?

The basis of the choice was their uncoerced desire for a certain kind of life:

they chose which kind of life they wanted to have if it was up to them, which kind of life they hoped to have by making this choice:

1. a life with a GOD who was perfect and created us to join HIM in that perfection and in loving holy communion forever
or
2. a life in which we were just as important as this false god, better in fact because we were not liars about ourselves. A life in which we are our own GOD and our laws and our love is the epitomé of perfection. A life in which we bow to no one.
or
3. a life with any other kind of god being offered. Any kind, any shape, any rules anything at all.

Pretty simple - which life do you think you wanted?

As for salvation, we are still too far away from that part of the story to make any speculation about it at all. Yet...

Peace to all,

Ted

[dusk]

I would take #2 but the problem that you keep wiggling around is that the definition of #1 is invalidated by the description of #2.
I understand as you think that we chose what we wanted out of those 3 possibilities and if we chose wrong our condemnation is justified.

The problem is a few lines back you talk about informed decision with full knowledge.

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.

What a person wants depends in no small part on what they believe to be true, or what truth they know they have not. You didn't explain with any of your explanations how that works out.

Example:
If I am raised by a rebel in a monarchy the one truth "not to follow self proclaimed authorities" will be the one they press into me until I believe it. If I am raised to become a palace guard in the royal place, I will be taught until all doubt is gone that honor can only be gained by defending the king unquestioned in every situation.
Both make absolutely reasonable decision from their point of view. Absolutely consistent with what is known by each person to be true.

2. So? No one was given any reason to believe what God said was true...this bothers you exactly why? He told us he was our creator, is that what you mean? You don't seem to want a reason, you seem to be demanding proof.

Should people...? People should do what they want in this situation, which they did.

You just don't explain how this decision is an informed one and if it is not how one deserves the punishment. What one wants depends on what they believe to be true. You keep ignoring that problem (or explain your ideas very badly because I don't get it and neither does anybody else as far as I can tell).

[dusk]

I would take #2 but the problem that you keep wiggling around is that the definition of #1 is invalidated by the description of #2.
I understand that you think we chose what we wanted out of those 3 possibilities and if we chose wrong our condemnation is justified.

The problem is a few lines back you talk about informed decision with full knowledge.

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.

What a person wants depends in no small part on what they believe to be true, or what truth they know they have not. You didn't explain with any of your explanations how that works out.

Example:
If I am raised by a rebel in a monarchy the one truth "not to follow self proclaimed authorities" will be the one they press into me until I believe it. If I am raised to become a palace guard in the royal place, I will be taught until all doubt is gone that honor can only be gained by defending the king unquestioned in every situation.
Both make absolutely reasonable decision from their point of view. Absolutely consistent with what is known by each person to be true.

2. So? No one was given any reason to believe what God said was true...this bothers you exactly why? He told us he was our creator, is that what you mean? You don't seem to want a reason, you seem to be demanding proof.

Should people...? People should do what they want in this situation, which they did.

You just don't explain how this decision is an informed one and if it is not how one deserves the punishment. What one wants depends on what they believe to be true. You keep ignoring that problem (or explain your ideas very badly because I don't get it and neither does anybody else as far as I can tell).

[dusk]

I would take #2 but the problem that you keep wiggling around is that the definition of #1 is invalidated by the description of #2.
I understand that you think we chose what we wanted out of those 3 possibilities and if we chose wrong our condemnation is justified. Correct me if I am wrong.

The problem is a few lines back you talk about informed decision with full knowledge.

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.

What a person wants depends in no small part on what they believe to be true, or what truth they know they have not. You didn't explain with any of your explanations how that works out.

Example:
If I am raised by a rebel in a monarchy the one truth "not to follow self proclaimed authorities" will be the one they press into me until I believe it. If I am raised to become a palace guard in the royal place, I will be taught until all doubt is gone that honor can only be gained by defending the king unquestioned in every situation.
Both make absolutely reasonable decision from their point of view. Absolutely consistent with what is known by each person to be true.

2. So? No one was given any reason to believe what God said was true...this bothers you exactly why? He told us he was our creator, is that what you mean? You don't seem to want a reason, you seem to be demanding proof.

Should people...? People should do what they want in this situation, which they did.

You just don't explain how this decision is an informed one and if it is not how one deserves the punishment. What one wants depends on what they believe to be true. You keep ignoring that problem (or explain your ideas very badly because I don't get it and neither does anybody else as far as I can tell).

[ttruscott]

I would take #2 but the problem that you keep wiggling around is that the definition of #1 is invalidated by the description of #2.
I understand as you think that we chose what we wanted out of those 3 possibilities and if we chose wrong our condemnation is justified.

The problem is a few lines back you talk about informed decision with full knowledge.

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.

What a person wants depends in no small part on what they believe to be true, or what truth they know they have not. You didn't explain with any of your explanations how that works out.

Example:
If I am raised by a rebel in a monarchy the one truth "not to follow self proclaimed authorities" will be the one they press into me until I believe it. If I am raised to become a palace guard in the royal place, I will be taught until all doubt is gone that honor can only be gained by defending the king unquestioned in every situation.
Both make absolutely reasonable decision from their point of view. Absolutely consistent with what is known by each person to be true.

2. So? No one was given any reason to believe what God said was true...this bothers you exactly why? He told us he was our creator, is that what you mean? You don't seem to want a reason, you seem to be demanding proof.

Should people...? People should do what they want in this situation, which they did.

You just don't explain how this decision is an informed one and if it is not how one deserves the punishment. What one wants depends on what they believe to be true. You keep ignoring that problem (or explain your ideas very badly because I don't get it and neither does anybody else as far as I can tell).

Good morning dusk,

Yes, of course #1 is invalidated by #2...that's the point so how can you reaise it as an objection??? These are not inclusive ideas such as the koombayah "all paths lead to the top of the same mountain"

they are mutually exclusive ideas so that the person must choose from their own desires about the kind of universe they most want to live in.

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.

Now, here are the elements of a true free will choice which were the rules the choice ran by, so to speak, but without addressing the other problems with creation nor election etc:


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.

[Ref: definition of ingenuous: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ingenuousness as: 1. Lacking in cunning, guile, worldliness; artless. 2. Openly straightforward or frank; candid.

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.

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.

[Chase200mph]

I would take #2 but the problem that you keep wiggling around is that the definition of #1 is invalidated by the description of #2.
I understand as you think that we chose what we wanted out of those 3 possibilities and if we chose wrong our condemnation is justified.

The problem is a few lines back you talk about informed decision with full knowledge.

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.

What a person wants depends in no small part on what they believe to be true, or what truth they know they have not. You didn't explain with any of your explanations how that works out.

Example:
If I am raised by a rebel in a monarchy the one truth "not to follow self proclaimed authorities" will be the one they press into me until I believe it. If I am raised to become a palace guard in the royal place, I will be taught until all doubt is gone that honor can only be gained by defending the king unquestioned in every situation.
Both make absolutely reasonable decision from their point of view. Absolutely consistent with what is known by each person to be true.

2. So? No one was given any reason to believe what God said was true...this bothers you exactly why? He told us he was our creator, is that what you mean? You don't seem to want a reason, you seem to be demanding proof.

Should people...? People should do what they want in this situation, which they did.

You just don't explain how this decision is an informed one and if it is not how one deserves the punishment. What one wants depends on what they believe to be true. You keep ignoring that problem (or explain your ideas very badly because I don't get it and neither does anybody else as far as I can tell).

Good morning dusk,

Yes, of course #1 is invalidated by #2...that's the point so how can you reaise it as an objection??? These are not inclusive ideas such as the koombayah "all paths lead to the top of the same mountain"

they are mutually exclusive ideas so that the person must choose from their own desires about the kind of universe they most want to live in.

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.

Now, here are the elements of a true free will choice which were the rules the choice ran by, so to speak, but without addressing the other problems with creation nor election etc:


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.

[Ref: definition of ingenuous: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ingenuousness as: 1. Lacking in cunning, guile, worldliness; artless. 2. Openly straightforward or frank; candid.

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.

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.

Kudos, well written!!!!!!!!

[ttruscott]

...
Well in the context of the discussion a threat would be "An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment." (TheFreeDictionary). I would say hell is quite a threat and a rather steep one for something as simple as doubting the claims of a particular religion. If you were to compare this to government that would be like giving someone the death penalty for jaywalking or littering. When you also take into account original sin and salvation where also manipulated by "god" hell definitely becomes a threat and one that I don't think we entirely deserve whether we believe or not. When you break it down it just becomes extortion.

Your error is here:

I would say hell is quite a threat and a rather steep one for something as simple as doubting the claims of a particular religion.

Hell was not a 'threat' for doubting the claims of a particular religion.

1. There was no threat. Legally for it to be a threat the consequences must be immediate and the person must feel that inury or death is immediate. Saying "I'll kill you in 10 years if..." is not a legal threat, especially if I had no obvious means of making good on my statement nor acted in a threatening manner. Telling the truth about a nasty consequence is not a threat or extortion until it is proven that it can be carried out and something is paid to offset the consequence. Legally that is.

But it might be extortion - "the obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force..." except no one was asked to give anything or to even believe.

We were asked to make up our own minds what kind of universe we wanted to live in and then choose between two (or more) options, which had vastly opposite outcomes.

2. "doubting the claims of a particular religion" falls short in this way:

According to the revealed purpose of HIS creation:
Isaiah 43:7, 21
7 "whom I created for my glory"
21 the people I formed for myself that they may proclaim my praise.

Matthew 22:
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.

Revelation 14:7 He said in a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory.."

...and without free will our songs of love and praise are robotic nonsense. Love, praise and worship can only come from a true free will chocie. A spiritual or meat robot parroting "I love you. I praise your glory." can never fulfill HIS purpose.

Creating a person(s) able to make this true free will choice to fulfill HIS purpose also meant that they had to be able to rebel against HIS will and destroy forever being able to fulfill the purpose of HIS creation of them.

We were to choose which kind of life we wanted to have, which kind of life we hoped to have by making this choice:

1. a life with a GOD who was perfect and created us to join HIM in that perfection and in loving holy communion forever so we could fulfill HIS creation plan for us and in us,
or
2. a life in which we were just as important as this false god, better in fact because we were not liars about ourselves. A life in which we are our own GOD and our laws and our love is the epitomé of perfection. A life in which we bow to no one,
or
3. a life following any other guru who claimed to be god, wanting to live under his uniques set of demands and rewards.

Now, He did weight the choice to follow HIS plan for our creation nicely with the election promise and the promise of the gospel salvation if we should ever fall into sin after choosing to conform to HIS plan,

and He did warn the others that their choice was eternal in that once HE proved to them that HE was in fact GOD and that the universe they wanted the most was in fact unavailable, they could never change their mind because the proof would coerce them to choose for self interest, not their deepest free will hopes and desires.

Self creating their eternal character as being unable to fulfill HIS plan for their creation was also explained to be the very definition of evil and that they would never quit hating GOD and trying to subvert HIS church.

Knowing this before choosing, but with no proof, applied no threat to them, as it was merely three peoples opinion that bad things would ensue because they were in fact GOD that the rebellious would be denying,

making them unable to ever fulfill HIS plan therefore outside of HIS love forever, destined to eternal separation and suffering in a place called hell.

Peace, Ted

[99percentatheism]

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?

Extortion? That's an absurd line of reasoning.

Ultimatum! That is the language of The Ultimate Authority.

We see that in nature. Evolution DEMANDS it!