Just pointing out the stupidity of this argument

[orangebox21]

Nope.  It means that at this time God has not drawn you to Himself.  

If you read the Bible and misrepresents what it says, that may mean you didn't read it right.  The conclusions you come to after understanding it, that's a different story.
I couldn't have written that any better than you did.  I agree, fadora's are more July than sleep.

The very clear message i get from reading the bible is that this god made everything and then us. Gave us free will and expected us not to use it.

 
If God didn't want us to use our free will, then why did God in his command to Adam give him choices?

Then when we did he was so angry that he made our lives and hell and worse damned us to an eternal hell

Are you making the claim that God made our lives and hell and damned us to an eternal hell solely out of anger?  Not because we have broken His law, nor because He is holy, nor because He is just, solely out of emotion?  

What was the first thing God did when a man used his free-will to break His law?

unless we did everything in exactly the way he wanted including kill/shun/convert everyone that did not worship him.  Then in order to lift that demand he kills his favorite child to satisfy his anger toward us.

 
Are you claiming that the sacrifice on the cross is limited to lifting the demands of the law and satisfying God's wrath towards us?  Does that mean you are excluding the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us?

so now The only way we can avoid the predetermined hell is to grovel in worthlessness at the sacrifice that this god needed

So groveling is the means by which we receive the lifting of God's demands and the satisfaction of His wrath towards us?  No grace or faith involved, just groveling?

to appease himself of our "god" given free will.

So you are claiming that God is only appeasing himself of our "God" given free will attribute, and not from the results of having used that attribute to break God's law?

If i'm missing the point then the book and most of its interpriters are seriously flawed.

That's an odd premise:  "If I'm missing the point then the book and most of it's interpreters are seriously flawed."  In order to prove the conclusion you're implying, namely that the book and most of it's interpreters are seriously flawed you'd need to prove the antecedent.  In other words the only way for you to logically prove your conclusion is if you 'miss the point.'