Anselm's Second Ontological Argument

[doubtingmerle]

it's based entirely on the individual's own subjective desire. Morality is always an objective claim; not a subjective one.

If we choose to live, then we need other people. That is an objective truth.

If we need others to help us, we cannot expect them to do it unless they think there is something in it for them. That is an objective truth.

If everybody needs each other, and all those others need to think there is something in it for them to participate, then we need laws that fairly bring people together in order to survive. That is an objective truth.

Hence, we have a firm basis for morality.

And I said, "Westernized Judeo-Christian ethic." Either you conform to Western Civilization, or you don't.

Western civilization was influenced by many peoples, including Jews, Christians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, American Indians, etc.

I am grateful for my heritage. All of it.

But if ancient laws do not efficiently build the trusting relationships we need to survive and live a good life in this day and age, then we have the right to change the laws. A wise man once wrote:

Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

--Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence.​

 

[Mark Quayle]

Sounds to me that what you think God's plan is is just you making assumptions based on what you read in the Bible.

Fair enough. But not all. For example, it is obvious he does not have destruction as a primary purpose in creating. Omnipotence would be bored by such a thing, if that were all he had in mind. Also, we can know that he would not experiment, as he has nothing to learn, and is the sole beginning cause for any effects, so that there can be no such thing as the rule of chance. Therefore, we know that he did not create for no reason, but was purposed. Intent can also be shown other ways that are not drawn on the Bible.

So God commanded it then because he figured that Humans would be okay with it in that time, but he won't command it now because he knows that Humans wouldn't be okay with it today?

Haha, I don't know if humans have ever been ok with what God commanded.

That's quite a bit of an oversimplification and ignores the progression of understanding of the things we learn over time. God didn't create for the purpose of making the best society as quickly as possible, as, or so it seems reasonable to me, this life is not for this life.

For a start, I find it hard to believe God would decided what he would and would not tell us to based on whether he thinks we'd be okay with it (as there are plenty of parts of the Bible where he specifically asked people to do things that they were NOT okay with, such as Jonah and Abraham being told to kill his son).

But I also think that any command that God gives would be happily followed by any of his followers. Why would they not be eager to follow God's command?

We are endowed, (and no I didn't figure this out on my own), with a self-important outlook on life, and a drive for self-determination. The Omnipotence of God (and this I did figure out --not from the Bible, not from other Christians) compels submission and so the two clash --pretty much all the time-- each side vying for our attention, dedication and promotion.

The Bible says "God is truth". To my thinking the statement is kind of like the "I AM" statement, a claim to First Cause and the notion that all (including principle, fact, logic, love, good --everything but sin, which is a negation of good just as a lie is negation of truth and therefore is not in-and-of-itself a thing) proceeds from God.

Thus, in our present condition, we tend to chafe against authority though we naturally recognize it. We demand our independence. But Omnipotence --i.e. First Cause-- does not negotiate with its effects. He doesn't consult us to make us what we are. Nor does he need us to understand or know him.

I don't get from external evidences nor from reason that we humans are a special kind of creation --unlike any other-- but according to Scripture it is so. And by experience it certainly fits reality. I am unable to grant that we are mere animals. On the other hand, and to me it is humorous, the Bible speaks of a different sort of life from what we commonly consider life. I love this sort of thing, riddle, puzzle, only visible after having encountered it.

Pardon my rambling, but I think it is relevant --we rebel against our maker, we contend with him as if we are effective in doing so, in our hubris we assume ourselves to be something quite without any considerations concerning our maker as though we are peers of his or something. We declare our independence, but if he is our maker, as First Cause it is logically implied that we cannot exist apart from his maintaining our existence. But we try anyway.

We are unlike any other creation, in that we are not simply what we are, but are incomplete beings. Thus we don't, though willed beings, in our present incomplete condition, easily yield our assumed right of self-determination. We chafe against God and even against what we would become. We think we already are. But only he is.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Uh, I personally don't think that God gives the commands.

You do. So I was writing questions from your perspective. If from your perspective, you think God commands something, and all of us can see that the thing being commanded is wrong, do you do it anyway?

Now do you understand where I am coming from with my questions?

If God commands me, it is right for me to obey the command. This does not make me dangerous to society, but perhaps to its ideology. A faithful believer in Christ is not a murderer.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I see. So when Abraham heard a command to kill his son, supposedly coming from a God who said not to kill, then Abraham should have had his head examined?

You might be on to something there.

Well aren't you the clever one! But we can all play with words, and it isn't always respectful or intellectually honest to do so.

Not that Abraham had God's law at that point --he didn't, though of course he had conscience-- but, you are neglecting that God's command not to kill, is pretty obviously a command not to murder. It does not mean that there is no 'time to take a life (lives)'. Furthermore, Abraham's conflict had nothing to do with any conscience about killing in and of itself, but about God's promise to him concerning Isaac his son, through whom he had been told he would have progeny. Abraham had doubts, but not about God's faithfulness and trustworthiness --he doubted his concepts and understanding, I think, perhaps even for the first time beginning to realize the depth of God's authority over even death.

Lol, this is the same God, first cause, that you want to relegate to creaturehood, as if he is subject to your mind.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Please pay attention: PSR IS the demonstration of it! If you doubt PSR, then you reject logic and therefore all "demonstrations" pertaining to deductive reason. Or else you have a really weird definition of "demonstration." The Principle of Sufficient Reason is sufficient.

No. It is not. You are again confusing validity and soundness. An arguments validity can never be the demonstration of its soundness.

You're still omitting the fact that their "evidence" is founded on their false presupposition. They've convinced themselves according to their own confirmation bias. <-- That's bad, okay? You're implying that bad presuppositions and confirmation bias is fine.

Sigh, No again I have said no such thing. Your continued strawman arguments are tiring.

I wouldn't even know where to start. Why don't you do it? Wait. Is it because you wanna passively sit back and play "nuh-uh" with it? I don't believe you really have anything to explain.

Sigh, again more strawmen and accusations.

For one thing, you're interpreting it differently from other atheists who rush to the same stalling tactic. I really don't have time for such petty pedantics.

Yeah, atheists do not think alike. Go figure.

negation - Is there a functional difference between "not believing" and "believing not"? - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange
[/quote]Your link provides no good information. Why not explain it in your own words why

1. I do not believe gods exist.
2. I believe no gods exist.

are equivalent?

Here is why they are not. What if I had a 5 gallon bucket completely full of 0.5 inch diameter marbles. I told you that there is an even number of marbles in the bucket. Would you believe me? If you say I don't believe there are an even number of marbles in the bucket are you then claiming there are an odd number of marbles in the bucket? No you are not.

What surprised me is that you took a different interpretation as other atheists. You never used the word "lack" or "graduated belief." I'm getting so many different stories that I don't know who to believe. No pun intended.

Again, atheists believe different things. There is no atheist worldview. It is simply a lack of belief in gods, that is it.

It's not about you at all. It's about the "or." Or makes it deliberately vague. Whichever "or" you decided to choose indicates you should have been clearer and just used the one you chose, instead of "lack."

I told you what I meant.

Then you're saying you're not open-minded at all. Good to know.

What a dishonest tactic. I want to know what is true and not true. Provide convincing evidence and I will change my mind. I was a Christian for a long time and it wasn't until I started to think about my beliefs that I became unconvinced. You think all atheist secretly believe but are fighting against that belief. You are wrong and have no evidence to back that up. Do you honestly think a lack of belief indicates closed mindedness?

The initial argument was about the God I worship, so it's in the book. I could elaborate, but since it's in the book, why would you care?

Demonstrate the book is true.

 

[Mark Quayle]

And that is the best form of government your God could come up with? One would have thought First Cause could have thought of something better.

BTW, is heaven a theocracy just as you describe, where God is the law, and nobody else has a say in how things work?

The best? Hardly. What makes you think he was trying to do the best he could? He limited his own effectiveness on purpose. I believe the time is coming when you will see complete theocracy, where none of his subjects chafe against him. The will obey out of love for him, their understanding being ground in knowing him, not in mere intellectual apprehension and weak minded fickle bursts of emotion.

It kind of amazes me how atheists pretty consistently think themselves capable of coming up with a better God, than the one that makes up his own mind and doesn't consult his creation. You want God to be like yourself.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

IOW, "If the OT god existed and I was living in OT times where God literally said, "Go and utterly destroy the Amalekites," then yeah I'd totally do it. It would be a sin not to. Problem?

I don't believe you would kill children as directed by god. I think you have no other option but to say this to keep your beliefs in tact. You are not a child killer, you are a valued person and any god that would require you to kill children is not worthy of your worship. Let your God kill who He chooses himself. You are better than that, at least I believe that.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The best? Hardly. What makes you think he was trying to do the best he could? He limited his own effectiveness on purpose.

Ah, silly me. So they had this theocracy that forced them to kill unbelievers and those who picked up sticks on the Sabbath, and yes, that was a terrible form of government, but God made it bad on purpose?

What kind of a God would deliberately give people a bad government?

It kind of amazes me how atheists pretty consistently think themselves capable of coming up with a better God, than the one that makes up his own mind and doesn't consult his creation. You want God to be like yourself.

Ah, so if God deliberately gives me a bad government, I should just say nothing and accept my woeful position in life?

If their government was deliberately bad, then perhaps they should have followed the recommendation of Thomas Jefferson:

Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

--Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence.​

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ah, silly me. So they had this theocracy that forced them to kill unbelievers and those who picked up sticks on the Sabbath, and yes, that was a terrible form of government, but God made it bad on purpose?

What kind of a God would deliberately give people a bad government?


Ah, so if God deliberately gives me a bad government, I should just say nothing and accept my woeful position in life?

If their government was deliberately bad, then perhaps they should have followed the recommendation of Thomas Jefferson:

Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

--Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence.​

You continue to misrepresent the facts any way you can to make your point. No, their theocracy did not force them. They still had to obey --a decision, an act of the will. And no, that was not a terrible form of Government. It was only weak, in that mankind (including ancient Israel is sinful and self-important, 'asserting independence from God with every breath'.) and unable to bring about sinlessness. The theocracy of the Kingdom of Heaven, on the other hand, is a completely different sort of thing.

Say nothing? Where do you get that? Obedience to those in authority over me does not mean I should say nothing. But yes, there is a time to throw off the shackles of tyranny. Particularly so, when tyranny claims authority over conscience, as though to make man no longer accountable directly to God. But as with killing, so with revolution --you will most likely find true danger in yourself before you find it in me.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Well aren't you the clever one! But we can all play with words, and it isn't always respectful or intellectually honest to do so.

There was no play with words. It was a simple question: When Abraham heard a command to kill his son, supposedly coming from a God who said not to kill, then Abraham should have had his head examined?

If Abraham was here and told us he was hearing a voice telling him to kill his son, he might want to see a shrink, yes?

Not that Abraham had God's law at that point--he didn't, though of course he had conscience--

Uh, actually there was a previous command not to kill: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Genesis 9:6

but, you are neglecting that God's command not to kill, is pretty obviously a command not to murder.

Actually, no, that is not what the 10 Strong Recommendations say. They say don't kill.

Murder is illegal killing. If the command not to kill means not to murder, it is saying it is illegal to do illegal killing. That's really helpful, huh?

The Bible isn't clear on exactly what counts as illegal killing.

It does not mean that there is no 'time to take a life (lives)'.

When Abraham set out to kill his son, that doesn't seem to me like a "time to take a life".

Furthermore, Abraham's conflict had nothing to do with any conscience about killing in and of itself, but about God's promise to him concerning Isaac his son, through whom he had been told he would have progeny.

Wait, what? Abraham was about to kill his son, and he had no conscience about what he was doing to his son, but only thought about his future descendents?

This Abraham guy seems like a character. I am not sure I would enjoy meeting him.

Abraham had doubts, but not about God's faithfulness and trustworthiness --he doubted his concepts and understanding,

Darn right. I would sure hope that a man that binds his son on an alter and lifts a knife to kill him would have some doubts about his understanding.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Darn right. I would sure hope that a man that binds his son on an alter and lifts a knife to kill him would have some doubts about his understanding.

Christopher Hitchens in one his debates said he had two-word response to a god that would ask such a thing...Of course, it can't be repeated here.

 

[Paulomycin]

If we choose to live, then we need other people. That is an objective truth.

The problem here is that, "If we choose to. . ." is a subjective personal preference, and not an objective moral imperative.

If we need others to help us, we cannot expect them to do it unless they think there is something in it for them. That is an objective truth.

No, it's a subjective personal preference every time you pad it with "if we need" or "if we want." The "if" makes it optional. Moral imperatives are never optional.

I am grateful for my heritage. All of it.

Your mostly theistic heritage that you're borrowing from.

But if ancient laws do not efficiently build the trusting relationships we need to survive and live a good life in this day and age, then we have the right to change the laws. A wise man once wrote:

Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

--Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence.​

Jefferson was relying on Locke's god. Jefferson was a huge fan of Locke. Even had a painting of him hanging in Monticello, referring to Locke as, "one of the three greatest men who ever lived."

Anyway, my point is clear: You cannot derive an "Ought" from an "Is," or a value from a fact. YouTube

 

[Paulomycin]

No. It is not. You are again confusing validity and soundness. An arguments validity can never be the demonstration of its soundness.

Universal logic is both valid and true, therefore sound. If you reject universal logic, then you're either a misologist, an absurdist, or insane.

PSR is both valid and true, therefore sound. I'm just applying PSR universally.

Sigh, No again I have said no such thing. Your continued strawman arguments are tiring.

It doesn't matter what you said. What matters is what flat-earthers' arguments are founded on. In this case, it's their presuppositon that the Earth is not round. Then all their arguments are based on that confirmation bias. Just admit that. Why are you fighting so hard for flat-earthers?

Sigh, again more strawmen and accusations.

I see you're not in much of a hurry to actually correct me on the purported "true" knowledge of the nature of belief. Therefore, I can only conclude that you're faking it.

Here is why they are not. What if I had a 5 gallon bucket completely full of 0.5 inch diameter marbles. I told you that there is an even number of marbles in the bucket. Would you believe me? If you say I don't believe there are an even number of marbles in the bucket are you then claiming there are an odd number of marbles in the bucket? No you are not.

YES I AM, because the negation of "evens" directly implies "odds." Where do you get this garbage? I would not be claiming a real unknown or "indeterminate" between evens and odds, because an indeterminate is not a determinate thing! If indeterminate, then only "evens or odds," but since I'm denying "evens" in the example, then I can only be claiming an odd number of marbles in the bucket.

I told you what I meant.]

"Lack" remains (deliberately) ambiguous due to the clear either/or in the definition. It's a coy little game that a lot of atheists play, like "maybe, maybe not." They can't commit to anything, because they need wiggle room to escape.

What a dishonest tactic.

Reminder: You're an atheist. You have zero evidence of any objective standard of truth. You're just too afraid to jump into the bottomless pit of existential anomie. You want it both ways, but I'm afraid you can't have it both ways. If "100%," as you said, then you're completely settled and closed-minded about the subject. Simple.

I want to know what is true and not true. Provide convincing evidence and I will change my mind.

"Convincing" means "something that will force itself through my subjective incredulity." Persuasion is subjective. Evidence is objective. Prove anything (anything!) beyond any doubt whatsoever, and I guarantee that someone can still slam their "nuh-uh" arbitrary doubt, mistrust, or suspicion against it. That's how it works. That's why I brought up flat-earthers to begin with, because that's what they're doing. The most hilarious bit is how you defend them.

I was a Christian for a long time and it wasn't until I started to think about my beliefs that I became unconvinced.

There are so many deliberate gaps in this alleged backstory I could drive a truck through them. Do you realize how many times I've punched through this rotten drywall? Where did you "start to think" about your beliefs? Weren't you just really looking for a way out? If you had something to think about, then why are you hiding it and not giving me the exact same thing to think about that you did? Is what you "thought about" so sacred that you cannot share it to deconvert someone else? Why the mere threats? Admit it, you were just a CHRINO and you just wanted a way out.

You think all atheist secretly believe but are fighting against that belief. You are wrong and have no evidence to back that up.

You're already doing it. Right now.

Demonstrate the book is true.

1. If the initial argument assumes the God of the Bible, then I don't have to. Moving the goalposts just makes you look bad.

2. If you really used to be a Christian "for a long time," then you'd have known that General Revelation necessarily precedes Special Revelation.

That is, assuming they taught you anything at church. If "I used to be a Christian for a long time," means your parents dragged you to church as a kid and you spent every Sunday finger-painting Noah's Ark or playing youth basketball, then I blame your Children's Ministry; not you.

 

[Paulomycin]

I don't believe you would kill children as directed by god. I think you have no other option but to say this to keep your beliefs in tact. You are not a child killer, you are a valued person and any god that would require you to kill children is not worthy of your worship. Let your God kill who He chooses himself. You are better than that, at least I believe that.

You people have been using that argument for years to scare us into conceding the debate, but when I stay put and say, "Yes I would," you suddenly pivot and say, "I don't believe you would kill children as directed by god."

You're an atheist! You have no objective morality that dictates you shouldn't kill children. At best, you "frame it" as an option (like Merle does), "If you don't want to kill children, then you shouldn't." But a subjective personal preference is not a (universally) objective moral imperative.

The narrative frame was strictly Old Testament; as-if I was getting the same direct Revelation from God that everyone else was. God is simply using His people as the method of His judgment. If he can use the earth, or lightning, or flood, then why not His people?

The Bible doesn't teach "tabula rasa" or "innocent children." The 21st century is just a different "dispensation," for lack of a better word.

 

[Paulomycin]

Christopher Hitchens in one his debates said he had two-word response to a god that would ask such a thing...Of course, it can't be repeated here.

Based on what? Hitch relied on argument from outrage a lot.

The solution is given in the book of Hebrews, but atheists are generally too triggered to finish reading the entire Bible.

 

[Mark Quayle]

There was no play with words. It was a simple question: When Abraham heard a command to kill his son, supposedly coming from a God who said not to kill, then Abraham should have had his head examined?

Nope. And, not 'a God' but 'God'. Remember, Omnipotence, First Cause. I'm pretty sure Abraham was aware there can be only one.

If Abraham was here and told us he was hearing a voice telling him to kill his son, he might want to see a shrink, yes?

I'm pretty sure you are aware of more than one stark difference between society now and society a few thousand years ago. Abraham isn't here.

Uh, actually there was a previous command not to kill: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Genesis 9:6

That isn't a command not to kill, but oh well, what's the point --he knew better than to murder.

Actually, no, that is not what the 10 Strong Recommendations say. They say don't kill.

Murder is illegal killing. If the command not to kill means not to murder, it is saying it is illegal to do illegal killing. That's really helpful, huh?

The Bible isn't clear on exactly what counts as illegal killing.

You probably would do well to research the way Jewish thinking was. I'm under the impression it was well understood. The Children of Israel were not in the habit of claiming God contradicts himself.

More than Illegal killing, it is wrongful death at the hand of another. As you have been hinting at, though not in these terms, there is moral objective law beyond society's mores. And there is conscience.

When Abraham set out to kill his son, that doesn't seem to me like a "time to take a life".

Why not? At God's direct command, I should think it was.

Wait, what? Abraham was about to kill his son, and he had no conscience about what he was doing to his son, but only thought about his future descendents?

This Abraham guy seems like a character. I am not sure I would enjoy meeting him.

Where did I say he had no conscience about what he was doing? His conscience, it seems to me, was in much better repair than yours or mine. He did what was right, and God kept his promise.

"Only thought about his future descendants" ---wow. That's not what I said. I said his conflict was about that. Obviously what he was about to do was related. But you, in your self-important judgement of things you don't understand, want to impose your mode of right and wrong on someone way back then. I would be amazed except it is pretty obvious you do a lot worse --you want to impose it on God himself. Now THAT:S amazing.

Darn right. I would sure hope that a man that binds his son on an alter and lifts a knife to kill him would have some doubts about his understanding.

And I would hope that someone entrenched in modern society and its supposed standards of morality would have some doubts about his understanding of what was right and wrong way back when.

I'm sure when they meet up with you at the judgement, they will apologize for their wrongheadedness.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, their theocracy did not force them. They still had to obey --a decision, an act of the will. And no, that was not a terrible form of Government.

Nice little spin you put on the Old Testament theocracy.

Did you grow up singing The Hornet Song in Sunday School?

He does not compel us to go, No! No!
He does not compel us to go.
He does not compel us to go 'gainst our will
But He just makes us willing to go.
​

When the Canaanites hardened their hearts against God
And grieved Him because of their sin,
God sent along hornets to bring them to time,
And help His own people to win.
The hornets persuaded them that it was best,
To go quickly, and not to go slow;
God did not compel them to go 'gainst their will,
But He just made them willing to go.

He does not compel us to go, No! No!
He does not compel us to go.
He does not compel us to go 'gainst our will
But He just makes us willing to go.
​

If a nest of live hornets were brought to this room
And the creatures allowed to go free,
You would not need urgings to make yourself scarce,
You'd want to get out, don't you see.
They would not lay hold and by force of their strength
Throw you out of the window, Oh No,!
They would not compel you' to go 'gainst your will,
But they'd just make you willing to go.

He does not compel us to go, No! No!
He does not compel us to go.
He does not compel us to go 'gainst our will
But He just makes us willing to go.​

OK, if you want to spin it that way, the theocrats did not force folks to follow them, but, like the mafia, they had ways of making you willing to go.

One would think a loving God could do better than that.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't believe you would kill children as directed by god. I think you have no other option but to say this to keep your beliefs in tact. You are not a child killer, you are a valued person and any god that would require you to kill children is not worthy of your worship. Let your God kill who He chooses himself. You are better than that, at least I believe that.

See this thing you do? I keep hearing it from mockers. Abraham didn't 'kill children'. There weren't 'talking snakes' nor talking donkeys' in the Bible. Why do you do that?

 

[Paulomycin]

Uh, actually there was a previous command not to kill: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Genesis 9:6

No problem. What-if Abraham were willing to take that sin upon himself?

Abraham was in on it from the very beginning, "“My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.” If Abraham committed the sin, then he was willing to pay the price; knowing that God would not break His promise. Abraham concluded on his own that God was able to go so far as to raise the dead in-order to keep His promise. - Hebrews 11:17-19.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Nice little spin you put on the Old Testament theocracy.

Did you grow up singing The Hornet Song in Sunday School?

He does not compel us to go, No! No!
He does not compel us to go.
He does not compel us to go 'gainst our will
But He just makes us willing to go.
​

When the Canaanites hardened their hearts against God
And grieved Him because of their sin,
God sent along hornets to bring them to time,
And help His own people to win.
The hornets persuaded them that it was best,
To go quickly, and not to go slow;
God did not compel them to go 'gainst their will,
But He just made them willing to go.

He does not compel us to go, No! No!
He does not compel us to go.
He does not compel us to go 'gainst our will
But He just makes us willing to go.
​

If a nest of live hornets were brought to this room
And the creatures allowed to go free,
You would not need urgings to make yourself scarce,
You'd want to get out, don't you see.
They would not lay hold and by force of their strength
Throw you out of the window, Oh No,!
They would not compel you' to go 'gainst your will,
But they'd just make you willing to go.

He does not compel us to go, No! No!
He does not compel us to go.
He does not compel us to go 'gainst our will
But He just makes us willing to go.​

OK, if you want to spin it that way, the theocrats did not force folks to follow them, but, like the mafia, they had ways of making you willing to go.

One would think a loving God could do better than that.

Ha ha! sweet little song. No, can't say I've ever even heard that one before.

You may not believe this, but what you describe is exactly what is going on right now with political correctness, BLM/ANTIFA etc's threats, democrat and media propaganda and the cancel culture ...but, whatever works, right? Yet you want to claim innocence and moral clarity of current society? Yet you don't even have a basis for morality itself, nor believe in objective morality.. It is all relative, to you, yet here you are judging Abraham, God and anyone who opposes you, by YOUR standard!