Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

To be consistent with Voluntaryism, do...

ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 10:36:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
...voluntaryists need to be opposed to religions like Christianity, which essentially coerce people into doing good things?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 10:37:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 10:36:30 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
...voluntaryists need to be opposed to religions like Christianity, which essentially coerce people into doing good things?

Aren't you voluntarily associating with that religion?
My work here is, finally, done.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 10:38:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 10:37:46 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:36:30 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
...voluntaryists need to be opposed to religions like Christianity, which essentially coerce people into doing good things?

Aren't you voluntarily associating with that religion?

Isn't Christianity a coercive religion, and isn't coercion something that voluntaryists are ideologically opposed to?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 10:41:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 10:38:51 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:37:46 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:36:30 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
...voluntaryists need to be opposed to religions like Christianity, which essentially coerce people into doing good things?

Aren't you voluntarily associating with that religion?

Isn't Christianity a coercive religion, and isn't coercion something that voluntaryists are ideologically opposed to?

First, I am hardly the mouthpiece for any political theory.
Second, explain what you mean. I didn't know I was forced to be a Christian. As such, any subsequent religious required actions are by my own doing. Similarly to taking care of a child a woman birthed; no one forced her to keep it, but she is coerced into taking care of it, isn't she?
My work here is, finally, done.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 10:46:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 10:41:37 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:38:51 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:37:46 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:36:30 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
...voluntaryists need to be opposed to religions like Christianity, which essentially coerce people into doing good things?

Aren't you voluntarily associating with that religion?

Isn't Christianity a coercive religion, and isn't coercion something that voluntaryists are ideologically opposed to?

First, I am hardly the mouthpiece for any political theory.
Second, explain what you mean. I didn't know I was forced to be a Christian. As such, any subsequent religious required actions are by my own doing. Similarly to taking care of a child a woman birthed; no one forced her to keep it, but she is coerced into taking care of it, isn't she?

It is not joining the religion which is coercive, it is the nature of the religion itself. Once you are a Christian, you are coerced into doing good things at the threat of fiery torment in Hell. That sounds like some pretty hardcore coercion to me.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 10:53:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 10:46:47 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:


It is not joining the religion which is coercive, it is the nature of the religion itself. Once you are a Christian, you are coerced into doing good things at the threat of fiery torment in Hell. That sounds like some pretty hardcore coercion to me.

It is, if you choose to believe in the religion.
Let's say Christianity is fact, and you will go to hell if not a believer and do-gooder.
You know the consequences, and you choose accordingly. Where is the coercion?

How is it any different than being disliked and shunned (and passively being run out of town) for drunkingly beating your wife? Either way, you choose how to act knowing the consequences.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 10:59:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I guess what I am trying to say is:
coercion = force
force =/= consequences

I don't see a helpless child you birthed coercing you to feed it, but it sure as hell is your responsibility to feed it.
My work here is, finally, done.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 11:18:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Coercion would mean the person actually making ( / threatening to make) them go to hell.. in the Christian's mind, they are just letting the person know the consequences of their actions; ie, 'If you run out onto the road you might get hit by a car.'
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 11:52:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 11:18:55 AM, sdavio wrote:
Coercion would mean the person actually making ( / threatening to make) them go to hell.. in the Christian's mind, they are just letting the person know the consequences of their actions; ie, 'If you run out onto the road you might get hit by a car.'

This sounds reasonable so far given how the thread is evolving. Personally I think the obsession over "coercion" on this website is questioning something that either I take for granted or simply do not see a rational basis to question, but whatever, let's see where this goes.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 5:28:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If coercion wasn't allowed, then speech wouldn't be allowed either. Speech is just a form of coercion- the getting people to do what you want.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 6:29:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 5:28:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
If coercion wasn't allowed, then speech wouldn't be allowed either. Speech is just a form of coercion- the getting people to do what you want.

To continue this line, morality is seen by many as a form of coercion (prescriptivists being referred to here). Customs are coercive in a sense.

To say coercion =/= consequences is too simplistic: if I said "Give me your money or I'll kill you", clearly I am coercing you. However, if I say "If you choose to continue to keep your money and not hand it to my person, the consequence will result in your death", I am still of course being coercive, in a Clockwork Orange-sort of way.

Coercion is of course blown up a lot as an important issue by anarchists far more than it needs to be (though not done enough to be consistent, unfortunately). However, I'd emphasise that it is unjust coercion, or more generally injustice, that is more problematic than coercion proper. It as a means to a more just end is surely justified, yet to categorically reject coercion as a means is excessive and gratuitous.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 7:26:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 6:29:38 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/19/2013 5:28:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
If coercion wasn't allowed, then speech wouldn't be allowed either. Speech is just a form of coercion- the getting people to do what you want.

To continue this line, morality is seen by many as a form of coercion (prescriptivists being referred to here). Customs are coercive in a sense.

To say coercion =/= consequences is too simplistic: if I said "Give me your money or I'll kill you", clearly I am coercing you. However, if I say "If you choose to continue to keep your money and not hand it to my person, the consequence will result in your death", I am still of course being coercive, in a Clockwork Orange-sort of way.

Coercion is of course blown up a lot as an important issue by anarchists far more than it needs to be (though not done enough to be consistent, unfortunately). However, I'd emphasise that it is unjust coercion, or more generally injustice, that is more problematic than coercion proper. It as a means to a more just end is surely justified, yet to categorically reject coercion as a means is excessive and gratuitous.

And getting back to the topic at hand, there are no consequences if you don't follow that religion, so there is no coercion, implied or otherwise.
Using your example, if I were Superman, your gun would not kill me, therefore your threat means nothing, and I may act as I please.
My work here is, finally, done.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 8:39:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 5:28:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
If coercion wasn't allowed, then speech wouldn't be allowed either. Speech is just a form of coercion- the getting people to do what you want.

Should we not ban murder? When you eat food, you're denying someone else access to that food, essentially murdering them. When you don't smile at someone on the street, you're making them __% more depressed, which shortens their lifespan, also murdering them.

My point being that you're pretty much just trying to nullify the word 'coercion' by pointing at the edges of it's definition - but you could do that with literally any other word, because of the fact that the English language is an imprecise tool. However, there's still not really any link there between simply communicating something and threatening to personally use violence if they don't do something. The 'coercion' referenced in AnCap is a specific kind of coercion, the one involving violence.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 8:41:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 8:39:10 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/19/2013 5:28:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
If coercion wasn't allowed, then speech wouldn't be allowed either. Speech is just a form of coercion- the getting people to do what you want.

Should we not ban murder? When you eat food, you're denying someone else access to that food, essentially murdering them. When you don't smile at someone on the street, you're making them __% more depressed, which shortens their lifespan, also murdering them.

My point being that you're pretty much just trying to nullify the word 'coercion' by pointing at the edges of it's definition - but you could do that with literally any other word, because of the fact that the English language is an imprecise tool. However, there's still not really any link there between simply communicating something and threatening to personally use violence if they don't do something. The 'coercion' referenced in AnCap is a specific kind of coercion, the one involving violence.

Precisely, but the OP is not talking about violence. Saying that you're damned to Hell is not violence- it's nonsensical ranting. My point was that if we were to take the OP's point as true, then consequently, we must ban all speech, since the OP is advocating banning coercion in general, not only that which involves violence.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 9:50:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 10:36:30 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
...voluntaryists need to be opposed to religions like Christianity, which essentially coerce people into doing good things?

By that logic, voluntaryists need to be opposed to the existence of any organization that requires certain things of their members.

Example, the AICPA can suspend or even terminate membership of CPA's who do not meet certain requirements.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 9:52:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 9:50:04 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:36:30 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
...voluntaryists need to be opposed to religions like Christianity, which essentially coerce people into doing good things?


By that logic, voluntaryists need to be opposed to the existence of any organization that requires certain things of their members.

Example, the AICPA can suspend or even terminate membership of CPA's who do not meet certain requirements.

The difference is that this is violent coercion. For example, Christianity (or the diety of that religion) tells people that if they are not without sin, they will be eternally tormented in a fiery Hell.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 9:56:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 9:52:24 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 9/19/2013 9:50:04 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:36:30 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
...voluntaryists need to be opposed to religions like Christianity, which essentially coerce people into doing good things?


By that logic, voluntaryists need to be opposed to the existence of any organization that requires certain things of their members.

Example, the AICPA can suspend or even terminate membership of CPA's who do not meet certain requirements.

The difference is that this is violent coercion. For example, Christianity (or the diety of that religion) tells people that if they are not without sin, they will be eternally tormented in a fiery Hell.

I didn't know voluntaryists were only opposed to violent coercion.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 10:07:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 9:56:02 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 9/19/2013 9:52:24 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 9/19/2013 9:50:04 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:36:30 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
...voluntaryists need to be opposed to religions like Christianity, which essentially coerce people into doing good things?


By that logic, voluntaryists need to be opposed to the existence of any organization that requires certain things of their members.

Example, the AICPA can suspend or even terminate membership of CPA's who do not meet certain requirements.

The difference is that this is violent coercion. For example, Christianity (or the diety of that religion) tells people that if they are not without sin, they will be eternally tormented in a fiery Hell.

I didn't know voluntaryists were only opposed to violent coercion.

Well, that is the primary concern, as it goes against the non-aggression principle, which is fundamental to voluntaryism.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 10:24:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 10:07:34 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:

Well, that is the primary concern, as it goes against the non-aggression principle, which is fundamental to voluntaryism.

Would you consider telling someone that they will get cancer, and likely die, if they do not stop smoking, a form of violent coercion into quitting smoking? Would you consider telling someone, if they do not recieve medical treatment for a condition, they will die, violent coercion into recieving that medical treatment?
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 10:28:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 10:24:10 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:07:34 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:

Well, that is the primary concern, as it goes against the non-aggression principle, which is fundamental to voluntaryism.

Would you consider telling someone that they will get cancer, and likely die, if they do not stop smoking, a form of violent coercion into quitting smoking? Would you consider telling someone, if they do not recieve medical treatment for a condition, they will die, violent coercion into recieving that medical treatment?

The difference there is whether or not the consequence is a result of a punishment from an authority figure, or something that is just a natural consequence.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 10:32:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 10:29:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:38:51 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Isn't Christianity a coercive religion?

No.

See post 16.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
YYW
Posts: 36,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 10:33:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 10:32:31 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:29:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:38:51 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Isn't Christianity a coercive religion?

No.

See post 16.

I did. That does not make Christianity coercive.
Tsar of DDO
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 10:34:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 10:28:55 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:24:10 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:07:34 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:

Well, that is the primary concern, as it goes against the non-aggression principle, which is fundamental to voluntaryism.

Would you consider telling someone that they will get cancer, and likely die, if they do not stop smoking, a form of violent coercion into quitting smoking? Would you consider telling someone, if they do not recieve medical treatment for a condition, they will die, violent coercion into recieving that medical treatment?

The difference there is whether or not the consequence is a result of a punishment from an authority figure, or something that is just a natural consequence.

the similarities being, in neither of the examples listed, as well as christianity as a seperate example, is anyone being forced to do anything. They choose whether or not they want to.

So cable/internet/phone providers coerce you into paying your bill, by saying that your services will be shut off if you don't? As that would be an example of an authority figure doling out a punishment as a consequence of ones actions.
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 10:36:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 10:07:34 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 9/19/2013 9:56:02 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 9/19/2013 9:52:24 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 9/19/2013 9:50:04 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:36:30 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
...voluntaryists need to be opposed to religions like Christianity, which essentially coerce people into doing good things?


By that logic, voluntaryists need to be opposed to the existence of any organization that requires certain things of their members.

Example, the AICPA can suspend or even terminate membership of CPA's who do not meet certain requirements.

The difference is that this is violent coercion. For example, Christianity (or the diety of that religion) tells people that if they are not without sin, they will be eternally tormented in a fiery Hell.

I didn't know voluntaryists were only opposed to violent coercion.

Well, that is the primary concern, as it goes against the non-aggression principle, which is fundamental to voluntaryism.

I disagree with that. Voluntaryist are also concerned with theft, fraud, or any other types of coercion that would take away another's rights that may not involve theft.

Coercion is coercion regardless of the method used.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 10:36:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 10:33:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:32:31 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:29:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:38:51 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Isn't Christianity a coercive religion?

No.

See post 16.

I did. That does not make Christianity coercive.

What about the threat of severe punishment if one does not follow what is deemed moral by God is not coercive?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
YYW
Posts: 36,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 10:39:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 10:36:49 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:33:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:32:31 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:29:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:38:51 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Isn't Christianity a coercive religion?

No.

See post 16.

I did. That does not make Christianity coercive.

What about the threat of severe punishment if one does not follow what is deemed moral by God is not coercive?

(1) It is not a threat, and (2) Even if it were, because you retain the choice to believe or not believe in the afterlife, you cannot be coerced by any account of it, unless you accept that account.

Said another way, there is no threat of violence, but if there were, such a threat would only a threat if you allow yourself to be threatened.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 10:41:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Accepting faith in the Christian God is a voluntary act; you are not coerced to accept that faith, because the "terms and conditions" of Christianity only have meaning to the individual who believes whereupon they accept faith. Consequently, Christianity is not coercive.
Tsar of DDO
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 10:42:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 10:41:41 PM, YYW wrote:
Accepting faith in the Christian God is a voluntary act; you are not coerced to accept that faith, because the "terms and conditions" of Christianity only have meaning to the individual who believes whereupon they accept faith. Consequently, Christianity is not coercive.

pfffffffffffft, lawyer speak, thats some mighty fancy fine print ya got goin there
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
YYW
Posts: 36,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 10:44:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 10:42:53 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:41:41 PM, YYW wrote:
Accepting faith in the Christian God is a voluntary act; you are not coerced to accept that faith, because the "terms and conditions" of Christianity only have meaning to the individual who believes whereupon they accept faith. Consequently, Christianity is not coercive.

pfffffffffffft, lawyer speak, thats some mighty fancy fine print ya got goin there

Is any of what I said confusing?
Tsar of DDO