Does proof of God smack of coercion?

@suzianne said
FMF lost faith because he stopped deciding with heart and switched to brain (thus his testimony that he just "stopped believing" (the Christian God was true) - he had no evidence).

@suzianne said
Everyone must have a choice (including the option of turning it down) for that choice to be based on free will.

Do I dare? I'm way out of my league here. Still, like a fool I feel cohered into participation.

I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people.

Now consider that these stiff-necked people were witnesses to the parting of the waters and also walking on the land the waters were covering before seeing what must have been the greatest unnatural phenomenon a human can witness in a lifetime. And what of the pillar of fire guarding their rear? Just some of the wonders they are said to have witnessed in Exodus. And still they rebelled against the Lord.

The term, coercion, reeks of ignorance, when it comes to God. If we are to deal with proof, then the term persuasion, is more appropriate. The things of God are proved best through persuasion, and not coercion, if free will is also to take a part here. Coercion is forceful, intrusive, and mandates, while persuasion convinces. Gentle persuasion is the vehicle that will take the soul/mind to that upper earth, the real one.

Persuasion has long lasting effects once accomplished, and from that point is strictly voluntary. Not so with coercion, which has to be constantly applied, and once removed its negative effects fade in the distance.

@suzianne said
I've always claimed that God avoids leaving proof of his existence on the world, just so that unbelievers can be free to not believe. In this way, belief and whether you follow him or not becomes a personal choice and not because you were coerced.

@fmf said
I realized I was no longer convinced by the claims Christians make about God and Jesus and themselves based on the Bible, and so I stopped self-identifying as one.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
This sounds a little contrived.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
To identify as a Christian in the first place you must have been convinced 'by the claims Christians make about God and Jesus and themselves based on the Bible.' Did these claims change in some way to cause you to stop self-identifying as a Christian?

@fmf said
It was a gradual process over quite a long time as the building blocks fell away. As I have said before, it moved inexorably towards a realization and was not the result of a conscious decision.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
So it 'was' an unconscious uncoupling, akin to that had by Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin?

@fmf said
I know absolutely no idea what the story was with Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Their relationship came to an end as a result of an 'unconscious uncoupling,' in the same way your relationship with Christianity came to an end.

@fmf said
I was extremely conscious of what was going on.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
But you said above it was a "realization and was not the result of a conscious decision."

If it wasn't a conscious decision then it must have been unconscious (Like Gwyneth Paltrow).