Sure.
To start with, the reason I seemed to have changed coarse on you, is because if you reread my comment you will see it actually explains the difference between one and the other.
Follow me here, if you need to kill a rat, you put out rat poison. In order to get the rat to eat the poison, you need to disguise it, and the best way to do that is to use 99% of good food that will lure the rat into eating the poison.
Now the good food is not what kills the rat, it is the 1% of poison that did the job.
So too are authoritarian style government systems that the people voluntarily vote for. To make it attractive, they offer what you consider is the good, and who would say taking care of those in need is bad. After all, for the vast majority of humans it is the moral thing to do.
However, when you already have a system in place to do you must find a way to do that system one better. One way to do so is to put obsolesces in the way for the system in place to keep it from working. So, new laws come into place to make it more difficult for Christian organizations to properly do what they have been doing for 2000 years. remember, all Socialist are against Christianity to begin with, but as the article states, they now need those Christians to think they are doing what Christ wants them to do.
The trick is to make the people think Christ approves, thus the 99%, then they add their poison which is the 1%. People think Socialism is giving what Christ tells them they should do, but with their rules and regulations.
Under Christ, we should do as He tells us, but the truth be told if all did as he says, we would all be better off, whereas if we all do what the Socialist government tells us to do, we are all worse off.
So now the coercion part you ask about. Yes, they both seem to coerce you into accepting them, but truth be told, it is like offering a child a poisoned muffin as apposed to a muffin that will help them continue living a good life.
The end result is the difference. One is honest about the result, the other is not.
ne tells you you will die and forever be lost in a burning hell where the worm doesn’t die and the fire is never quenched. The second death. The other promises that your cradle to grave needs will be met and you never have to worry. Ever see that work as they advertise?
The difference being Christ doesn’t promise you wealth and good health on this planet, he is honest when he tells you you will die, but follow me and you can live, the other say you will have wealth and health, but you will eventually die and there is nothing else so ignore the guy carrying the cross because one day you will be just another carcass pushing up daisies.
I hope that helps. Trust me, it is more convoluted but the gist is one is coercion, the other if the truth. You decide who is honest.
Big difference.
So you are agreeing with me that both use coercion. The question of the benefits is a separate issue. Both use coercion to get you to sacrifice your self for the good of others, the state in the case of Socialism and God in the case of Christianity. Even though they are different in the concrete, they are identical in principle.
I just figured out an even better way to answer your question.
Lets say a ship is sinking due to someone eases negligence, in this case Adam and Eve caused sin to enter the world and thus death is the punishment.
You can follow the guy who promises you safety or the one offering a false sense of security until the ship inevitably sinks with you on it.
They both give you rules to follow. One admits the road will be tough, but promises you life. The other cannot give you life, but promises an easy road, which even that they cannot promise.
Eventually the ship sinks, you either followed the one who was honest and led you to life, or go down with the one who lied to you about everything.