Prayer?

[Skepsis]

There was only one choice to be made, and yes it was inevitiable that they would choose to do what was forbidden given enough time. That was apart of God's orginal plan, again if it were the options would not be there.

Then they didn't have free will.

Before you get tangled up in the greek philosphy of free will know the biblical defination is not as complex. In that 'free will' is the presents of mind to be outside of the Expressed will of God. In otherwords It is the Ablity to sin, and nothing else.
A&E had this ablity via the tree of knoweledge.

For future reference, please refrain from spelling "presence", "presents".
Free will as defined today means the ability to make your own choices. That's simplified a tad, but it'll work. It isn't freedom of the will to be unable to make a choice for yourself. That is obviously deterministic. How can you be so dull?
If they had no choice but to follow through with this plan... If you believe in hell, this makes your God ultimately unjust. You do see what I'm talking about?
He's neither loving nor just in the model you propose.

It's only oxymoronic, if you can not get past the cathloic model of sin/Choice/Free Will.

It's oxymoronic regardless. You can't say there is no blame and that someone took responcibility (for assumed blame) in the same sentence, regardless of whether or not the Catholics thought you could.

Do you have any recolection before you were born? Then how can you say no with any certainity?

Actually, yes I can. Because it doesn't matter whether or not I was asked then, it matters if I am asked now. If was to be offered this choice now as the individual I label "me" I might have a difference of opinion than some ethereal version of myself.

It's God's Plan that you are given choice/The ablity to sin.

Choice isn't "the ability to sin". Choice is the capacity to choose whether or not you will sin. Huge difference. Nobody can choose to not sin, bar Heyseuse. If it's "God's plan" that I have to sin and have no choice in the matter and the very essence of what is "me" was created by him, then I am not at fault for sinning. He made me to sin. I am a sinning robot, if you will.

If you insist on using the term free will and holding the bible/God to your understanding of it, then I ask that you use the same bible to define that term.

Free will entails the ability to choose. That is the meaning of the phrase. If you think you are justified in using it like you are, then go ahead and prove it to me with logic and not verses from your Bible.

again, You are moving the goal posts. This is a fools arguement.
Do seriously not see this or simply do not understand the failed logic here?

Nope. You never responded to my analogy, or any argument I made for this. I guess I assumed you tacitly conceded this point. After all, that is what people do in debates to try to conceal the fact that they have no evidence for their claim. Show me why I am wrong to ask for extra-biblical evidence for claims made in the bible. I am not asking you for more evidence than is reasonably expected. Like I said before, if the questions pertained only to your story then I might be expected to only look to your story for answers. Unfortunately for you, these questions also involve reality and I am thus justified in asking for real evidence.

Why would you assume if someone did not love god they would hate Him. Their are billions of people alive that i do not love and yet do not hate.

This was in response to "every God-hating person would seek redemption".
So I think you just went ahead and corrected yourself. Bravo.
By the way, I never made the claim that everyone would hate God. I just said "why not"? He's a cunt if he is real, so why not hate him? That doesn't imply in the slightest that everyone would hate him.

God is not bound to approach humanity the way you think He should approach us. He has repeatedly (throughout History) only worked with those who put the effort in first.

There is no evidence of a God in the natural world, so I can only assume they were "pleading" which you say is one way to get God to ignore you.

He is not of this culture where flash and excess reign.

Actually, he created this culture. He planned it this way. So yes, he is very much "part of this culture".

If you want to know God you will be made to humble yourself before Him. not the other way round.

Because he could care less about the sufferings occurring in the world. He wants people to kiss his ass before he can save a single child from an apartment fire that killed 67? bullshit. That's disgusting.

Pain, suffering starvation are all ways to properly humble one's self, or the way to properly fill one's heart with self righteous pride. One act serves two purposes. Either to draw near or further seperate, it all depends on the heart in question.

Your meaningless dribble can be saved for Sundays. Pain and suffering are "humbling"? O.K. It shows that we are weak and can't keep everyone from suffering. But God can, and he doesn't.

What makes your arguement go away is the fact that it has been proved to be a fallacy of logic.

It has been labled by you as a logical fallacy. I swear, if this next bit doesn't have a real argument against my analogy you get to be added to my True Christian™ list.

whether you understand the term or not. In short I would be in greater error to answer this fallacy than if I simply remain silent.

If I didn't want to argue against what I consider to be totally stupid rhetoric I wouldn't be talking to you.

If you insist on an answer It is your job to then rephrase your question to not include a fallacy. Here is a link to a list if you are not familiar with the concept.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy Or to broaden the terms on which a suitable answer can be found.

I refuse to look at Wikipedia pages as a rebuttal. Either answer me or forfeit the argument. Clear as crystal.

Actually it doesn't for the very same reason I pointed out in my first response to you. You can not sole source the bible for information about God, then phrase a question based on that sole source material and then Move the Goal post to exclude the very same bible you used to formulate the question to begin with.

I am not questioning the nature of God; I admit I would be shifting the goalposts if I was. I am questioning events of history, don't forget. Just because it is unverified but your bible says it's true doesn't mean the bible is right.

Either rephrase your question to exclude biblical precepts about the God you asked, or broaden the base in which acceptable answers can be found.

What question? I demanded proof for your assertion that God spoke to prophets and throughout the ages. And that he appeared in the past to people.

Then please provide a list of material that gives detailed descriptions of the God of the Bible that are not based on the bible.

Am I asking about the nature of the God of the Bible? No!
I am and have been asking for proof of a historical event, the revealing of a God to prophets and random peeps in the past. That is first and foremost a historical claim, not a biblical one. That is why I maintain I am not moving the goalposts.

Meaning God answers prayers but again a Prayer is not something out side of what God orginally wanted in the first place!

Then traditional prayer is useless? Very much like talking to an imaginary friend, it can only bring comfort. Still, you would have to have a twisted mind to derive comfort from a God who would allow a large portion of the world to starve to death and die of illness.
God doesn't "answer" prayers. If I was standing still and someone asked me to stand still, would I be responding in any meaningful way if my intentions from the start were to remain standing still?