Proverbs 16:4

[Zenith]

If it was impossible for God to not know for sure what choice A&E would make, then he is not omniscient. Further, if he has some "impossibility" imposed upon him, he is also not all-powerful. Some Christians (Calvinists) would disagree with you about the predestination thing. But I wasn't talking about predestination. Condemning certain people to perdition and rewarding others in the afterlife before they are born is a little different than merely knowing which choice people will make beforehand. I was referring to the latter scenario.

Well, I have heretical (i.e. different, not widely accepted) views of the Bible.

First off, know (or, remember) that in the Bible you will not find the words "omnipresence", "omnipotence", "omniscience".
About omnipresence (the fact that God is everywhere), we find an explanation in Psalm 139.7-12.
About omnipotence (or, all-powerful - it is about power, not "can be weak" or "can be stupid" or other things for which we use the word "can"; and I'm not sure if "almighty" meant "with absolute power" or simply "most powerful", but it doesn't matter too much), we have Gen 17.1, 18.14, Matthew 19.26, which suggest God's power.
As about omniscience, there is a forced interpretation of Psalm 139.4 (which actually says that God knows the thought when you think it), and there are also prophecies that are understood as "God's foreknowing" when most surely, for most of them there was actually "God's decree to be so" and things that could have been known (i.e. it was not logically impossible to know them) - "impossible to be known" exists for me, because I don't believe in time as an object or an entity or something, to watch the "time" at some point and see what will happen.

So, sorry for asking, but... what is the actual question here?

But I would say that if God has that little regard for human life, he shouldn't have bothered creating this vale of woe in the first place just so that millions would fail to accept the story and only a scant number of all people ever born would actually come to believe in Jesus. just so that millions would fail to accept the story and only a scant number of all people ever born would actually come to believe in Jesus.

If you've read the post previous to the last one, and also read the verses I mentioned, when I talked about "believing in Jesus" (the very fact about who believes and who doesn't believe and what happens to them) you would have noticed that I don't agree with that theory as it is widely preached. That post is on page 9 of this thread, it's post #81.

Also (after you've read that post of mine), look at the following situation (as described in the Bible): man has fallen, countless generations follow (perhaps they also worship other gods, among other things). The flood comes and kills most and Noah & some of his kin survives. Now all men that follow are descendants of Noah. Countless generations follow, again, and they get to worship lots of gods. Then we have Abraham to whom God has revealed Himself, and it appears that God pretty ignored much of the rest. We get from Abraham to Jacobs (i.e. Israel) and his sons who go in egypt and serve the egyptians gods. Then Moses is sent by God to get them out and to give them laws to keep - they were a small people, comparing to other peoples, and God simply ignored all the rest. And it follows, for perhaps more than 1000 years in which the Jews somehow, sometimes keep the laws and care about this God - and all the rest are ignored. And then Jesus comes, who is not concerned about converting pagans (He being sent to the people of Israel) and after He dies the apostles come, and two of the apostles say "who in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness." (Acts 14.16-17). And it followed a lot of time until pagans (and only a few of them could have) heard the gospel from the apostles. Isn't it now strange to imagine that exactly after Jesus said "he who does not believe is condemned" every pagan that died (even before the apostles were sent) without hearing the apostles to have gone to hell? Anyway, read the post that I have written on page 9 of this thread to see how I understand John 3.18 and others alike. Perhaps it would make some logic.

The point is (and... I forgot to mention): About belief in Jesus, as I see in the bible it is not a mere auto-suggestion, i.e. forcing yourself to believe something and start acting accordingly. We see in verses such as John 6.44 and John 6.65 about the 'authentic' belief/faith in Jesus that it is given by God. Also, we (or at least, I) note in Acts 8.37 that it says "If thou believest with all thine heart", i.e. is not a mental process (i.e. forcing your mind to something) but something coming from the heart. So it can't be something like "ok, let's believe!" (and twist your mind to believe and then say "that's it!"). OK, now that we know that this 'belief' comes from God, the question is: "whom does God chose?" and, contrary to what Calvinists and others say, it is based on the person - and we have verses that say the person is guilty for not believing in John 5.44 and the explanation given in John 3.19-21 and even Hosea 5.4. In other words, a wicked man (i.e. that loves doing evil, it's not about being improperly educated, it's about his 'heart') won't come to believe the gospel (and all that means with that) because that would mean for him to cease doing the evil/wicked things he does (things like adultery, fornication, deceiving others, drunkenness, etc. which are condemned by the bible) and he doesn't want to leave them. Well, there is also the blockages people have, like misunderstanding things (e.g. a twisted interpretation with whom the catholics have indoctrinated their adepts) and stuff alike that cannot allow a man to believe - i.e. you can't believe something that sounds totally illogical, and unlike many christians imagine, God does not force people to believe something they see illogical, to make them both believe illogical things and still see that the things they believe are illogical. But this is something quite different, and I didn't see this problem as condemnable in the bible. The condemnable part of unbelieving is described in John 3.19-21.

Also, if god is real and we are his beloved creation, he must be a very sad deity indeed.

Perhaps it's out of context, but I don't think God really feels sadness.

Also, if god is real and we are his beloved creation, he must be a very sad deity indeed. If he is only concerned with the afterlife, it seems like our humans lives would be a sheer waste of time. Surely, if God was all-powerful, he could have created all of us in an adult state, perhaps at the same time as Adam and Eve, presented us with the choice to obey or not, and make his judgment, saving us and himself a lot of trouble.

Yeah, but even Adam and Eve did not escape the experience of life, and from what happened afterwards to them it doesn't appear as if God forsake them for good (i.e. to say something like "hell expects you! ha ha ha!!"). Probably because Adam & Eve did not do it in rebellion against God, but because they had been somewhat deceived. As about the solution you proposed, I imagined the effect/result would have not been the same as it is how things are now. And for God there could have been no trouble... well, at least I can't imagine a God falling to His feelings (of rage, frustration, lack of patience, whatever). And, as I've said/suggested in the previous post, I believe these experiences work more at transforming us than if we had been put in a posture, where isolated, we did not have to do anything, and when somebody did something bad, to be suddenly cut off. And perhaps this struggle of ours works at shaping us and makes us worth receiving something, comparing to doing nothing and receiving everything. If I missed what you meant, then sorry.

By the way, from what I can tell from the Bible, it seems that God does not care only about afterlife (though mainly about it). It seems that God also cares for our development (for us to become good, merciful, etc.) and things that help us to help others (e.g. like wisdom, which can help at that). As about healings and personal needs & desires... I don't know what to say... if I look in the Bible, except Jesus, miraculous healings were really rare (and even Jesus tells the people that which you read in Luke 4.25-27). As about asking things to God, it appears that there is a big difference between how God is described in the Bible and how He is preached and traditionally understood. You know, in the Bible God is the "lord" and people are His servants/slaves, while it is widely preached as if man is the "lord" and God is the "servant" - standing at man's whim. In the Bible the man is taught to do what God wants him to do, while everywhere it's preached that God should do what the man wants Him to do.

But I would say that if God has that little regard for human life, he shouldn't have bothered creating this vale of woe in the first place

I think I should understand "human life" as "human existence" (i.e. not only until we're buried).

Perhaps I got it a bit out of context, but... just want to explain this.
We'll have the situation with "people doing good" and "people doing evil" in mind.
Think it like this: you are a farmer in a secluded far away place, and decide to plant wheat. You know that if you plant it, you'll get to have a lot of flour. But you also know that you'll also get a lot of straw, that you wouldn't need (nobody wants it to buy it from you, and you don't have cattle, etc.) and which you would burn in fire. So, doesn't the work worth for the flour? or you would not plant at all because there would also be a lot of straw?

It appears that as He made us free, with free will, the same way He left us develop naturally, rather than force upon us attributes, i.e. to be/become in a way (wiser, with more patience, kinder, etc.) by a "hocus pocus" (which is, unnatural).

But he displays all kinds of unnatural attributes and actions in the Bible.

If you look in the Bible you will see that God has always allowed people to develop naturally and the methods used for changing people were not a "hocus-pocus", but experiences, bad experiences, etc. they passed through. Anyway, a difference that I notice between this "experience yourself" and "forcing upon you the things that He knows that are good" is something like: you have a child. you don't teach him to walk, you put him on a wheeled chair. (As the years pass) You know what food is best for him, you never let him eat what he wants. You know who are the kids that it is best for him to play with, you drag him after you to those kids to play with them, and never let him chose whom to play with. You know the things that he should know: you tell them to him and ask him to blindly believe them, and never let him think for himself, never let him seek and never let him get himself to conclusions, because you already know the truths, much better than what he could find himself. Now, why would you not allow your child to learn for himself and experience for himself things? Why would you force all those things to him and never let him understand anything alone?

Besides that, imagine this situation: a rich man is arrogant and despises the poor. He hears that arrogance is "bad" and prays to God "God please make me be arrogant no longer!" and when he's on the road towards home, he sees a poor child begging and he spits on him and insults him. The question is: does that rich man really want to be arrogant no longer? How can you tell? Should God force him to be in a way he does not want to be? If yes, then perhaps everybody on earth should say a quick, short "God please make me be according to your own will" and go to heaven (because God listens and forces them to be so), but that would be against freedom of choice, personal development, proving your own worthiness, etc. So a way to see if the man does indeed want to be so, would be to pass through some experiences that can change him (an experience does not force you to be in a way, it only allows you to be in that way, if you want it). For instance, the rich man may become poor and see for himself how being a poor means and suffering himself the despise of others. Passing through this experience, he may insult/swear God (what a proof of devotion to God...) for doing that to him and never care and think about the poor he despised, or he may start to feel sorry for how he treated the poor. In the latter case, having learned by that experience, he would despise the poor no longer and stop being arrogant. It was the experience that both tested him (tested his "heart") to see how he really is, and changed him accordingly. And it seems that in the Bible God puts men to pass through experiences, in order to test them, to teach them, and in order to change them (which can happen).

It doesn't seem to be the case that God is too concerned with maintaining the natural order, which is why it's so baffling that nothing like occurrences in the Bible have taken place in 2,000 years. God was unconcerned with the natural order then. Why is he now? Did he change? If so, God is not the same yesterday, today and forever.

As often as it happened to a common person to see something supernatural, between Abraham to Jesus or even until after, I can't have hopes. But if something happens, it may be in a secluded place where I won't hear about it (and if I hear, I'd doubt it was authentic... because of the many fallacies flying around).

Then, if you look quickly at one page and another, you may see many special things at once. But if you consider how often in people's lives and how widespread they were, then you would not see a God so eager for doing supernatural things. Also, I guess only two persons in the whole Bible are most 'special' in that matter, and two men only: Moses (Deuteronomy 34.10-12), and Jesus Christ (whom mostly healed people). And, by the way, it seems like in the Bible, whenever possible, God used more 'natural' methods rather than special effects, fire bolts, etc. For instance, God brought the Jews that got out of egypt, birds for meat (which, as I've read in "The Bible as History" be Werner Keller, those where/are migratory birds that pass through that region) rather than make special effects and make appear among different lights and colors cooked bird meat. Also, according to what I've read in the same book, it appears that it is a very high probability for the walls of the city of Jericho (in Joshua 6.20) to have fallen because of an earthquake (which is less SF than a "hocus-pocus"). Also, in wars - when the jews had to face enemies, God did not use meteors or SF bulls of fire with special effects to hurl at the enemies. Instead, even if God decided to help them, it still looked like an ordinary battle. And as about prophets, they usually (or, mostly) received revelations in dreams or visions (which are, in mind, not something that everybody sees and gets very exalted and says "wooooow! miiiiiracleees!"). And they did have good purposes.

By the way, from the bible it appears that whenever something miraculous was done, it was a need of it and had a good purpose (other than to make people say "woooow!"), and apparently the most non-spectacular method possible (except perhaps some events with Moses and Jesus), and when something very astonishing happened, it was quite secluded.

On free will: The options to follow him and go to heaven or not and go to hell is not free will but a divine imposition to believe or face the fire. Prisoners do not have free will in the same way. They can either be model citizens in jail with the hope of an early parole or be a deviant and remain locked inside. For the prisoner, like us, there is no third option.

If we have "doing good" versus "doing evil", and being rewarded accordingly, do you believe that would be a freedom of choice? (and we know that if one choses evil, then he calls a "lie" and "falsehood" everything that condemns him) And I don't understand why compared us with people inside the jail and not with those outside of it.

Anyway, the jail is not as much a "reward" for bad deeds as an attempt to help people change. If all the possibilities to change had been given to a man here, but he didn't cease doing evil nonetheless, would an unpleasant reward be unfit?

P.S. I'm quite tired now, I should go to sleep. I use to write a lot, sorry for the size. And I hope I wrote something useful.