Sabre,
"The fact that He knows your heart in no way changes that fact that it was your choice. He simply allows you to make that choice, even though He knows what it will be. The very fact that He could make us do his bidding, but doesn’t is the essence of free agency. That power, to know our hearts, is what allows Him to sit in judgment against us."
I think you are missing the point. The question points out the logical inconsistency and the mutual exclusivity of the two. Ie, you cannot have both omniscience and freedom of choice. All your answer does is make a simplistic statement of belief. It does not answer the question, "How is this possible?" If he knows, not has a real good hunch, but knows what your choice will be, how can you say that you have the power to choose otherwise?
"Such an argument as yours could be used to justify any crime. “God let me do it, so how can I be blamed.” Such an argument won’t work in a court of law, and won’t work at the seat of judgment, either."
My argument is not some attempt to use Christianity in some attempt a total hedonism. I am not trying to justify crime. I am merely pointing out that it is inconsistent to argue that an entity that is omnipotent and omniscient could hold an entity that it produces responsible for its actions. This being could make you anyway it wanted, and put you in any enviroment it wanted and further knows exactly what your reaction to the enviroment will be long before he ever makes you. It's all kind of pointless, don't you think?
"As you choose to get all extestential on us, I’ll respond in kind. I believe He could, but my simple, flawed human mind is probably unable to comprehend how."
My question is not existential in nature. Rather it is based in pure logic, boolean circles if you will. If you want existentialist crap, try Sarte. And if you believe he could, what logical argument do you propose to show it is possible. If you cannot, you simply choose to believe something even though it is clearly irrational because doing so jives with one of your centrally held beliefs.
"Hardly arbitrary. Rather, He is wise and consistent. He knows that for people to get along…no, for us to flourish and reach our full potential, there has to be a set of rules. These rules (codified in the Ten Commandments) recognize human nature, and are designed to help us make decisions that benefit our fellow man."
Doing something simply because you can is basically the definition of arbitrary behavior. Also, non-christian cultures have come up with basically the same mores on their own with no help from Moses. See civil law of ancient Rome. So once again, you have evaded the real question. In regard to ethics, is god merely arbitrary or unnecessary?
"Nice try, but you ignore certain aspects of history here, and in so doing cheapen what that struggle was all about. First, the Revolutionary War was not fought over money. It was fought for freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and yes, even (but not solely or even primarily) economic freedom. Many people have come to the United States to escape poverty, but I’d wager what they and most others really wanted was freedom. The Declaration of Independence was written to sum up all the reasons why these former British colonies could no longer suffer the burden of an Empire that chose to treat them as second-class citizens. That included political oppression, religious oppression, as well as financial oppression."
To get an accurate assessment of the why in history, you have to dig a little deeper than just the surface. Looking only at what the results are and simply stating an opinion that they were primary is not acceptable. Look at who started the war and what they had to gain. The war was primarily one for the nothern trading and manufacturing colonies. You will notice that Brittish efforts in the war sought to split the colonies along these lines. The southern colonies were reluctant to join. This was the primary reason Washington was put in charge, he was a Virginian and a southerner. The agricultural based south did not gain much from independence from England. As a matter of fact, it hurt them and caused the Civil War, which was also fought over money. Specifically, the tarriffs invoked by a Congress that was dominated by Northern industrial economies hurt the south causing that eventual split. And, if you will read some of the period writings by Jefferson, he forsaw the problem and predicted the civil war.
I think the central question you have to ask is, do I believe this because it makes sense, or do I believe it because it makes me feel better. I choose logic.
