I'll come back for the rest.
John 3:16 says whosoever believes and Christ-if not won't inherit eternal life .... the idea is that you have a choice whether to follow the biblical god or not. There are many consequences for not doing so by the decisions of the people involved.
It's the biblical context of the bible.
I'm sorry if I appear to be walking all around the question instead of answering it. I will get around to that towards the end of the post. It is not my intention to be difficult.
That annoys me when you drop the mic like you have provided the context for the bible.
What?! You got some leather shoes and a tie?
Let me give you my context: All kinds of trash doctrine is
claimed to be bible based, and there are reasons for that happening. People do it. It shuts people up, makes people happy. People want to feel like what they are hearing is bible based advice, but many contradictory ideas are claimed to be bible based.
John 3:16 is one phrase in a long speech full of symbols, symbols not straightforward language. What preachers claim is bible based
can be almost anything under the Sun from one preacher to the next. They have made a mockery of the phrase 'bible based'. You would be surprised what they have come up with and people have accepted.
JW are the only ones I know that are direct by means of saying that one who rejects god does not benefit from god's gift-and most likely would agree in context it is coercion given proselytizing is along those lines. I know many other protestants think likewise, but it varies on how direct they express it.
Many don't believe that god coerce people to believe in him. While that is a negative word, I'm not sure how it is false.
JW's are a friendly group who visit RF a lot. They are very heavy bible readers who are friendly; but they are dismissive, too. They have their own line to tow, elders to answer to, a theological system and a very defined doctrine they must accept. Would they be free to disagree? No. There are requirements, belief requirements. Roman Catholics, too, have requirements.
In your case you are telling me John 3:16 means thus and such, but I think you have constructed a straw argument. I don't think its the context of the verse nor of the bible. So you're arguing about these things that you've heard JW's say are bible based or RC's have said, what what the bible says. It actually says very little. It takes a lot of words to say it, but its not saying all that much. It doesn't explain what its own terms mean, such as 'Holy' or 'Pray' or 'Glory' or 'Service' or 'Meditate' or even 'Salvation'. These are important words, but the bible doesn't explain them. It says much less than people give it credit for. People fill in with our own definitions like we're playing mad libs. Roman catholics fill in words their way, JW's their way, you your way. The difference is admitting it, and I invite you to admit like me that you're playing with definitions that someone has given to you, has placed upon you.
I thought it was very direct without need for interpretation. If you have free will to chose god, and you use that free will to (how they say) reject him, and rejection is a sin, that free will really has no benefit.
You're filling in a lot of information that isn't there in the text. It matters when you're claiming to be bible-based. It matters to me. What the bible says about all of that is actually very little, and that is evidenced by the multiple theological systems for determining what it means.
I've heard christians say if they had no free will (to choose to sin/reject god), they'd be like robots. I never agreed with that line of thinking. One because it seems like they want to be attached to sin in order to believe in god and two who would not want to be with god without having the choice to reject him.
Free will is originally a Jewish concept. It is an adjunct of monotheism. It means that you don't need a god to tell you what is right or wrong, that you have a conscience. I, like many Christians, thought this had to do with a debate about predestination. Its got nothing to do with predestination. I suggest the entire argument about predestination comes from a misunderstanding of a few scripture verses, and it has to do with what I said earlier about the bible not including definitions for words. Entire groups of churches have avoided each other over this question about predestination and 'Free will' which has nothing to do really with it.
[Rom 8:29 NIV] 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
[Eph 1:11 NIV] 11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,
There they are: the most troublesome verses in scripture. Put them on your wall beneath some crossed axes. Free will should simply mean that you reject the imposition of gods and have a conscience, however in conversation with people who are trying to figure out the conundrum of predestination you will hear them use 'Free will' very differently. They'll ask "How can people be predestined and still make their own decisions (free will)?" Then the next person will speak up, and they'll go round and round until they decide to stop. People trying to understand the conversation will start to think free will is about predestination. By the way 'Free will' does not appear in the bible. It is from other ancient sources. The concept is however in the bible.
Many do... the only ones I don't think does is Catholics. However, I was went to a more liberal Catholic church. From what I gather on RF, catholicism is quite the opposite.
Unless the christian is Unitarian, many do find the non-believer at fault. It goes on the lines of "well, that was their choice."
Hence my question. Why not? The message is in the whole bible.
I suggest keeping Jesus meaning more terse, because he's talking to Nicodemus about Jewish things. 'World', 'Water', 'Spirit' are all undefined in the text. The water is not water. World may not be world. The spirit may not be spirit and so on. The definitions you must provide yourself and are like assumptions. Always be aware if you can of your assumptions, because you may have gotten your assumptions from a charlatan. There are many.
So...why would God want people to choose? People want people to choose and will rearrange scripture by injecting definitions until you are forced to choose. Divide and conquer.