Thank you for that post Lone Wolf,
I started out nodding my head in agreement .....until...you got to the part where you started making illogical assumptions and analogies that make the wrong assumptions.
I do give my child the free will to do the things she wants to do. (she is 7 by the way) I do though, periodically, search her room. How could any parent that loves his child do that? Doesn't that mean that I don't love her or trust her? No and Yes. No, it doesn't mean that I don't love her and YES, it means that I don't completely trust her. Is there a conflict and contradiction in my statement? I don't think so. I give my daughter the respect, free will and privacy that I think she needs to develop into a healthy adult. ON THE OTHER HAND.......If my daughter were to put someone elses life and happiness in danger, I would not hesitate to stop her by ANY means possible. I make no claims of being PERFECT, yet I am capable of caring for others that aren't even my daughter. I don't care how long she's been good. If I knew of an attempt on her part to lead someone down a path of certain destruction, or even possible destruction, I would instantly stop it. I can accept the premise that God didn't know what Satan was about to do. I can even accept the premise that God wanted to see what the reaction of the humans would be. I absolutely CANNOT accept the fact that a God that possesses at least the same capability to love and care for strangers that I do, would allow the humans to make a fatal mistake. A mistake that would not only doom them, but their children and almost every human born afterward to a life of struggle, suffering, pain and death.
When you have suffered excruciating pain, like a massive burn, you get a taste of what others have suffered. Not just some historical figures that appear in our minds like characters in a novel. No, people like you and me, women and children who have suffered lifetimes of unspeakable tortures, rapes, daily abuse and psychological pummeling. These people have become real to me. They are not pawns in some GAME. They are not meaningless colatoral casualties on some theocratic chess board. They might as well be my own children. Your analogy justifying the human suffering because God wanted to show his heretofore faithful servant that he trusted him holds about as much water as an upsidedown cup.
It really bothers me when people claim to use logic and then turn around and use analogies. Analogies that are then misapplied. Christians are the best at twisting analogies. You can come up with hypothetical scenarios all day long, and I'd love to hear them. But...
Your postulates are not acceptable to me. I can accept the assumption that some kind of god exists because "how did we get here?". I cannot accept your second assumption that there is an opposer. I can accept the POSSIBILITY but there are also other possibilities.
Yet the existence of both is central to the credibility of nearly all faith
You see... you are assuming that everyone has a faith. Not so. Most if not all societies have followed their leaders in this matter of faith but individuals who think for themselves will not have faith in something that cannot be proven or at least measured.
When you base an arguement on a false or at least presumptuous assumption, you lose the interest of those who choose not to blindly follow.
TimB