So how do you guys identify politically/philosophically?

[Duff Ostrich]

I'm a mix of conservative/libertarian. The conservatives would think I'm too liberal on homosexuality, reproductive issues, and soft drugs. Libertarians think I'm too conservative on immigration (Sometimes. There are hard right libertarians who are very anti immigration), criminal justice, and hard drugs. Both agree with me on taxes, spending, guns, and the US constitution.

I can respect religion, but American law is very clear that it has no place influencing policy. And if I'm being frank, neither Christianity nor Islam nor any other religion is equipped to have legal authority over anyone, anywhere, at any time, for any reason.

How does you being homosexual have anything to do with your political ideas?

I imagine it would be difficult to be a gay conservative, if most conservatives express some level of disdain for homosexuality. It is my sincere hope that the various right of center political parties of the world eventually grow up and enter the 21st century with the rest of us. I'm sure they will.

[Tamanoir]

Just one thing, I forgot to says. I believe this world is really wonderful and incredible, even if we tend to often forget it.

One example : Internets and orums are really an awesome things if you think about it. We can meet and exchange opinions for people all around the world, I'm sure a lot of great thinkers would have die to see it ! But we used it so often that we forget how incredible it is...

I think that life can be incredible, or judt really funny if you look at it the right way.

[Narga_Rocks]

You can believe that and still remain indifferent to the implications of the redemption or even choose to oppose Christ. The question of God and the Divine is also far more complicated than the average secular thinker can imagine.

But addressing that point alone, gnosis ≠ faith

While it is true that you can believe something happened and yet not care about the implications, or even dislike Him anyway, my point remains the same. Believing He would go to such lengths as self-sacrifice, yet not believing He'd make a slight effort to influence the writers of the Bible, remains odd no matter your stance on the "implications of the redemption."

To go back to disagreeing with what Rewjeo said with can't and won't, "can't" makes no sense in the context of Him creating an entire universe, and "won't" makes no sense in the context of certain fundamental beliefs of Christianity, without which can it really be called "Christian beliefs" at all?

[redturtle806]

Libertarian, Capitalist, and a "God-mostly-exists-in-foxholes" Christian. I don't force my beliefs on people ("Love thy neighbor, and let he who is without sin cast the 1st stone; it's amazing how many Christians forget this) and believe that legislating morality is just asking for corruption.

I think socialism is a horrible form of government, and would probably be an anarchist if instead of libertarian if I lived in a socialistic country. When you take away the reward for hard work, who in their right mind would work hard or take a huge risk in starting their own business?

As for the shitshow that is US capitalism, I blame both the Republican and Democrat parties. They're two sides of the same coin, and corrupt as all hell. Every single election it's just two cookie cutter third rate idiots who are jusssssssst different enough to fool the ignorant masses in voting for "their team." Capitalism can be great, but with the current US 1 2 party crapfest it just doesn't work.

I am very pro gun, as I believe that every human has the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Guns help you protect your life, protect your liberty, plus they're just plain fun to shoot. If the government or anyone else wants to take away my weapons, they can pry them from my cold dead hands. (But they'd sure as hell better not miss with that 1st shot :P)

[Rehab]

How does you being homosexual have anything to do with your political ideas?

Religion is tied up enough in politics in the U.S., usually right-wing politics being tied to right-wing interpretations of religion to be specific, that it's not as surprising as it might be elsewhere for somebody to feel like their sexuality and politics couldn't avoid being interwoven.

[full story I read on Imgur of two gay guys who were kicked out of a Romney rally without getting a specific reason why omitted]

Instinctually I'm a bleeding-heart liberal by U.S. standards, I'm thinking between left and center by center-left in the eyes of international estimates.

I'm kind of having a minor existential crisis over here at the moment, because it turns out that failing to show up in college for 3-4 years doesn't do wonderful things for self-esteem. Before that, though, I had this pseudo-spiritual reverence for, if not "faith" in, something that feels most appropriate to call a "spirit" of progress, though in an emotional sense rather than a supernatural or sentient sense. (paging the redundancy department)

I felt this kind of assurance that despite everything else getting in the way, humanity seemed to be heading in a direction over time of seeking understanding of itself and everything around it, and to improve both its quality of life and the Earth's, at least as soon as it got a handle on what things it did had what effects. Keeping that in mind, I had this kind of, I guess I can't really call it anything but faith, that by conscientiously helping others even in the short term, I could in a sense play a part, even if only a granular one, that would be helping all of us in the long, long term.

I'm guessing it's probably close enough to something somebody else already came up with and developed a philosophy around, but I'm nowhere near well-read enough to imagine what.

[Rewjeo]

@redturtle806: Out of curiosity, how do you define socialism? I recall hearing it defined as redistributing wealth, which makes all government inherently socialist, at least to some extent. And I think we would all agree that certain socialist things are needed - after all, public education is socialist in nature.

While it is true that you can believe something happened and yet not care about the implications, or even dislike Him anyway, my point remains the same. Believing He would go to such lengths as self-sacrifice, yet not believing He'd make a slight effort to influence the writers of the Bible, remains odd no matter your stance on the "implications of the redemption."

To go back to disagreeing with what Rewjeo said with can't and won't, "can't" makes no sense in the context of Him creating an entire universe, and "won't" makes no sense in the context of certain fundamental beliefs of Christianity, without which can it really be called "Christian beliefs" at all?

You're trying to make complete, rational sense of religion. There are a *lot* of things in this world that make no sense with Christianity, but Christianity has this catchall explanation that "God works in mysterious ways; we can't understand why He does what He does." I mean, why even bother having a Bible written when he could just make us all know everything he wants us to?

Edit: Should probably refresh before posting in a tab I've left open :/

Edited March 6, 2013 by Rewjeo

[Sublime Manic]

How does you being homosexual have anything to do with your political ideas?

How wouldn't it? The personal is political. Is there some particular facet of how they're interrelated you're curious about?

[Excellen Browning]

How wouldn't it? The personal is political. Is there some particular facet of how they're interrelated you're curious about?

Well maybe in my country no one in politics gives a fuck about sexual preference, if they're not in certain christian parties.

[Sublime Manic]

Well maybe in my country no one in politics gives a fuck about sexual preference, if they're not in certain christian parties.

Interesting. Well, it's often hyper-politicized in the US. There are even contemporary movements to try and have sodomy laws put back into place that got some press attention during the most recent election cycle.

[redturtle806]

@Rewjeo think russia during the height of the cold war.

I'm all for public education. Education is so fucking important in building a productive society, even more so than healthcare.

As for public healthcare, sure as long as I can opt out of it. (That means not paying for it either btw.) I eat right, excercise, and don't do stupid shit. Also If I'm ever so old that I can't provide for myself or feel the wind flow through my hair as I run through a grass field on my own two feet, what's the point of even being alive? Why should I have to pay extra because I share my healthcare average costs with a fat ass who can't walk a city block, some old fuck who sits in a bed waiting to die, or a homeless wino who goes into the hospital twice a week to get his stomach pumped.

However we need to smash big pharma. It's ridiculous how much power they have to drive up the cost of private healthcare via lobbying.

[Narga_Rocks]

I mean, why even bother having a Bible written when he could just make us all know everything he wants us to?

Riiiiight. Because that would totally work with the whole free will thing He gave us.

[Esau of Isaac]

Riiiiight. Because that would totally work with the whole free will thing He gave us.

Yeah, let's hear a round of applause for the Canaanites who put that free will to use eh?

The concept of an Old Testament God looking to honor free will is beyond laughable.

[Narga_Rocks]

Yeah, let's hear a round of applause for the Canaanites who put that free will to use eh?

The concept of an Old Testament God looking to honor free will is beyond laughable.

So, you are equating that^ with downloading into everyone's brains the entire knowledge of the bible as equal affronts to free will?

Besides, I'd choose making Pharoah march his army into the dry land surrounded by walls of water. Or, you know, election.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Narga_Rocks

[Paulina]

It's been fun reading everyone's ideologies. =) A few of these were quite surprising.

Anyway, delivering. I'm an atheist and an existential nihilist.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Paulina

[Esau of Isaac]

So, you are equating that^ with downloading into everyone's brains the entire knowledge of the bible as equal affronts to free will?

I am saying the God of Christianity doesn't value free will in the least so arguing in its favor is beyond moronic.

God literally punished humanity eternally for developing a sense of right and wrong.

Besides, I'd choose making Pharoah march his army into the dry land surrounded by walls of water. Or, you know, election.

Or the other times in which he clouds the enemies of his people with lies, hardens their hearts to make them act out, etc.

[Espinosa]

While it is true that you can believe something happened and yet not care about the implications, or even dislike Him anyway, my point remains the same. Believing He would go to such lengths as self-sacrifice, yet not believing He'd make a slight effort to influence the writers of the Bible, remains odd no matter your stance on the "implications of the redemption."

To go back to disagreeing with what Rewjeo said with can't and won't, "can't" makes no sense in the context of Him creating an entire universe, and "won't" makes no sense in the context of certain fundamental beliefs of Christianity, without which can it really be called "Christian beliefs" at all?

Traditional Christian theology makes distinction between personal views of messengers involved and those coming directly from God, though the entire Scripture is believed to be divinely inspired (I don't know the exact terms for some of these notions in English in this sentence, but you might, and I hope I got the point across).

I'm sure the Bible would, within that worldview, be an adequate manifestation of God's intent, as the emphases are put in specific spots and repeated by all four accepted Gospel authors, and the proposed "alternative" apocryphal writings contradicting the life of the Church had been rejected (e.g. if Jesus preaches that marriage is evil and flesh is bad, it can't historically be any of the Apostles and is therefore yet another Gnostic writ, or if the author has a morbid interest in describing how teenager Jesus killed a bully for messing up his castles made of sand - that would probably be a projection of some ancient guy's childhood trauma than word of God needing distribution).

The "sola scriptura" thing is a purely protestant thing and not the single characteristic of Christianity (it wasn't there a millennium ago, nor is it shared today). If a traditional Church (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Eastern Christianity ala Armenian/Ethiopian Church, take your pick) faced irrefutable evidence of a Gospel belonging to an entirely different source, i.e. not one of the Apostles, the Church would still take credit for it, basically saying something like "John might have not written this, but it's dear to us and we'll stand by every word". To a traditional Christian the Bible isn't everything, though it's the ABC every follower is expected to know, each traditional Church has a long and usually dramatic history and things didn't just stop 2000 years ago - life continues, new problems arise, etc.

[Tamanoir]

So, Narga Rocks, what are your opinions about the other religions ?

Jews, Christians and Muslim all have the same God. (Or else, I don't understandwhat monotheism means...°

Hell, even Protestant and Catholics have some diffeence of interpretation.

So, the way I would understand it is that God have shown his ways to all these people and that they have interpreted it differently.

I don't know a lot about religion obviously, but if you don't want to call them heretics, or blasphemers, you should have some explanation.

[Narga_Rocks]

I am saying the God of Christianity doesn't value free will in the least so arguing in its favor is beyond moronic.

God literally punished humanity eternally for developing a sense of right and wrong.

Strawman, but whatever. He didn't punish them for developing a sense of right and wrong. He punished them for disobedience. I mean, you say two people can do anything on the planet except one little thing, don't eat from that one tree, and they do. Why wouldn't that result in punishment?

Or the other times in which he clouds the enemies of his people with lies, hardens their hearts to make them act out, etc.

On the one hand, sure, he influenced them so "free will" might not be the right phrase for it, but consider that he allowed them to form their own opinions in the first place. Yes, he's punishing them for certain things. Say, Sodom and Gamorrah. But they actually had free reign over themselves for quite a while. I mean, they became his enemies in the first place because of that "free will." If they had all the knowledge of the bible downloaded into their brains from the beginning (and thus pretty irrefutible evidence of the existence of a deity unless society explained away said knowledge some other way), would they have been free to make those choices? All I'm arguing for here is the ridiculousness of the statement

why even bother having a Bible written when he could just make us all know everything he wants us to?

So, Narga Rocks, what are your opinions about the other religions ?

Guess.

Jews, Christians and Muslim all have the same God. (Or else, I don't understandwhat monotheism means...°

I don't think you understand what monotheism means. Not every monotheist believes in the same god. Call them god A and god B. If person X believes in both A and B, he is not a monotheist. If person Y believes in A but not any other god, he is a monotheist. If person Z believes in B but not any other god, he is a monotheist. Y and Z are both monotheists, but that does not mean they have the same god.

Hell, even Protestant and Catholics have some diffeence of interpretation.

Drastic enough to make certain parts of Ireland and Northern Ireland rather unsafe, yes. In theory, if they both claim to follow the God of the Bible then I'd have to say they are both trying to worship the same God. Not that they necessarily succeed, however. So some Catholics and some Protestants have the same God. Some do not. And don't forget, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." In other words, not everyone that says "I'm a Christian" is actually going to make it in.

So, the way I would understand it is that God have shown his ways to all these people and that they have interpreted it differently.

I suggest that this would imply a lack of power. I mean, phrases like "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." would indicate that Christianity is mutually exclusive with everything else. Logically, you are left with one of two conclusions: Christianity is right, something else is right. Either of these conclusions seem rational enough that I wouldn't question how someone could come to either conclusion.

The only way I can see coming to a different conclusion is to believe that God doesn't have the power to say "This is the way, walk in it", or that He doesn't have the will to say it. In either case, you can say that maybe all religions lead to a happy ending for the person. Especially the latter option. But the latter doesn't work with your interpretation that I quoted. So we are left with the former. God is incapable of stating what he wants humanity to go and do with itself clearly enough to prevent people who follow him from fighting each other, but somehow He holds the power of our afterlife in His hands anyway. Or He doesn't hold that power so it's no surprise that He doesn't have the power to tell humanity what to go and do. Now, your statement makes the assumption He exists, so I can't respond without that assumption intact. So He somehow exists, but doesn't hold enough power, which is odd because then why call Him God. Yet since this is the only way for your statement to make sense, run with it. He's got enough power to be called God, but somehow there are two groups at each other's throats that are both following Him and He is incapable of making both of their scriptures mesh enough to prevent the massacres. I think "only one or neither of those groups is actually following him" makes more sense, personally.

I don't know a lot about religion obviously, but if you don't want to call them heretics, or blasphemers, you should have some explanation.

I will regretfully call them all heretics or blashphemers. Just like many atheists will happily or regretfully call me nuts to believe in a Creator. So no explanation needed.

[Nightmare]

I don't think you understand what monotheism means. Not every monotheist believes in the same god. Call them god A and god B. If person X believes in both A and B, he is not a monotheist. If person Y believes in A but not any other god, he is a monotheist. If person Z believes in B but not any other god, he is a monotheist. Y and Z are both monotheists, but that does not mean they have the same god.

Actually, in Islam, we are told in our scriptures that the God that Christians and Jews worship is the same as our God, and that the previous scriptures were sent down by the same God (the issue of whether or not they were later corrupted is a different thing, however). So if I were to believe in that (which I do), I would say they are the very same.

I will regretfully call them all heretics or blashphemers. Just like many atheists will happily or regretfully call me nuts to believe in a Creator. So no explanation needed.

We're also told to have unity with other monotheists. ;__;

Edited March 7, 2013 by Nightmare

[Narga_Rocks]

Actually, in Islam, we are told in our scriptures that the God that Christians and Jews worship is the same as our God, and that the previous scriptures were sent down by the same God (the issue of whether or not they were later corrupted is a different thing, however). So if I were to believe in that (which I do), I would say they are the very same.

Going back to lack of power. God couldn't prevent his original scriptures from becoming corrupted. At least he was able to write new ones, though. Which are now right. I guess. So some lack of power, but not a complete lack of power. After all, the integrity of the current scriptures are apparently A+. In any case, Mulsims may believe they are following the same God, but Christians should not believe this. Our scriptures are pretty clear on this point.

We're also told to have unity with other monotheists. ;__;

But you are also taught that we are "wrong", yes? Okay, maybe blasphemers and heretics are too strong, but "wrong" we can run with, right? We are, after all, taught to love everyone, even our enemies. So certainly non-enemies should be loved.

One thing I find interesting about all this. There was a story about a place where the name Jesus was censored and a kid that kept asking about who this Jesus is got in trouble for doing it. Kid ended up a Christian. Don't censor stuff if you don't want to increase someone's interest.

I think there are vastly different groups of believers and teachings within each religion. Also explaining Catholics and Protestants. I wonder how many muslims are taught like you, to have unity with other monotheists, and how many are taught, shall we say, other things. I mean, dancing in the streets when bad stuff happens to Americans is bad.

[Tamanoir]

I'm not even sure there is a God, but if he exists this is how I make sense of him...

Well, I loved the explanation in "Good Omen" that it was all his goal. If God wants us to have free will, he could have forced Adam and Eve to contradict him.

About the difference between the 3 monotheist religion, he could have given different interpretation to all of them, and expect them to decide what is true or not.

Nobody can pretend to understand God's will.

I have personnaly theories :

He wants humans to have free will as you said, and don't give us more information, expecting us to make our own choices. So, that's noy that he can't, that is just that he chosed not to, which makes more sense.

Maybe he wants to be sure only his true followers can attend Paradise, or he has another plan. How could I know ?

Maybe he wants us to question his authority. I won't retend to understand everything

The other is that he is a trickster God, and just enjoy watching us think vainly about this.

(So... Loki, if you want.)

You may accuse me of thinking of God only in human term, because I'm unable to understand something that is abovve this, and this will be true... That was just my thoughts on the subject

[Espinosa]

I don't think you understand what monotheism means. Not every monotheist believes in the same god. Call them god A and god B. If person X believes in both A and B, he is not a monotheist. If person Y believes in A but not any other god, he is a monotheist. If person Z believes in B but not any other god, he is a monotheist. Y and Z are both monotheists, but that does not mean they have the same god.

Drastic enough to make certain parts of Ireland and Northern Ireland rather unsafe, yes. In theory, if they both claim to follow the God of the Bible then I'd have to say they are both trying to worship the same God. Not that they necessarily succeed, however. So some Catholics and some Protestants have the same God. Some do not. And don't forget, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." In other words, not everyone that says "I'm a Christian" is actually going to make it in.

Different god, really now? That's quite a stretch. I know a girl named Sue, she has a hearty laughter and a cute smile. So do her students who know she explains maths well. They know her as a very strict person, but that's not what she's like to her parents. If different peoples describe god in different, sometimes mutually exclusive ways, that only signifies a difference of context, nothing else.

I suggest that this would imply a lack of power. I mean, phrases like "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." would indicate that Christianity is mutually exclusive with everything else. Logically, you are left with one of two conclusions: Christianity is right, something else is right. Either of these conclusions seem rational enough that I wouldn't question how someone could come to either conclusion.

That's very much to the point, yet the link between Christ's persona and the church is an arbitrary one, and one is on his/her own when establishing where Christ is found in modernity. Does one not side with said "pagans" murmuring "lord, lord" when joining a large group that values repetition of rituals over spirituality? Why is it again so easy to shun the sinners and bow to the Pharisees? Even if membership within the church is the prerequisite for salvation, eternal bliss and the related good things, which church does one opt for exactly? Quite a few choices to make.

I will regretfully call them all heretics or blashphemers. Just like many atheists will happily or regretfully call me nuts to believe in a Creator. So no explanation needed.

Can't be a heretic if you aren't part of the church in the first place, nor a blasphemer when you're not concerned about holy things to desecrate them in speech, actions or wherever else. Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is a different matter entirely, but let's list all the people in the danger zone for that one and try to find a direct link between that crime and religious belief.

Going back to lack of power. God couldn't prevent his original scriptures from becoming corrupted. At least he was able to write new ones, though. Which are now right. I guess. So some lack of power, but not a complete lack of power. After all, the integrity of the current scriptures are apparently A+. In any case, Mulsims may believe they are following the same God, but Christians should not believe this. Our scriptures are pretty clear on this point.

If we assume communion through prayer is reality and at the same time that Muslims fail to connect to what Christians call God, are Muslims then connecting themselves to a different entity or they're simply praying into nowhere? In the latter case, how do the rest connect (=not miss), through knowledge of the Creed, correct ritual?

[Narga_Rocks]

Different god, really now? That's quite a stretch. I know a girl named Sue, she has a hearty laughter and a cute smile. So do her students who know she explains maths well. They know her as a very strict person, but that's not what she's like to her parents. If different peoples describe god in different, sometimes mutually exclusive ways, that only signifies a difference of context, nothing else.

So you are suggesting God treats people differently, which is fine, but then that He treats people who believe in him differently? I mean, to say He treats those that believe vs those that don't differently would be one thing. It only makes sense. But you seem to be suggesting that He would have a reason to show a different face to different believers.

That's very much to the point, yet the link between Christ's persona and the church is an arbitrary one, and one is on his/her own when establishing where Christ is found in modernity. Does one not side with said "pagans" murmuring "lord, lord" when joining a large group that values repetition of rituals over spirituality? Why is it again so easy to shun the sinners and bow to the Pharisees?

huh?

Even if membership within the church is the prerequisite for salvation, eternal bliss and the related good things, which church does one opt for exactly? Quite a few choices to make.

I'm not sure membership is a prerequisite. Fellowship with other believers is recommended, but I'm not sure there's something like "if you don't go to the right church, have fun in hell." Let's put it this way. If you live in a place with no Bible believing churches that stick to the core issues of Christianity, are you going to hell because you can't attend the right church? I doubt it.

Can't be a heretic if you aren't part of the church in the first place, nor a blasphemer when you're not concerned about holy things to desecrate them in speech, actions or wherever else. Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is a different matter entirely, but let's list all the people in the danger zone for that one and try to find a direct link between that crime and religious belief.

Oh.

A person believing in or practicing religious heresy.

A person holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted

I was interpreting the second one to simply mean that a heretic is anyone that doesn't believe what is right, and hence from the Christian perspective that would be, well, everyone else. I suppose you could interpret heresy another way, the first one, and then calling an atheist a heretic makes no sense whatsoever.

If we assume communion through prayer is reality and at the same time that Muslims fail to connect to what Christians call God, are Muslims then connecting themselves to a different entity or they're simply praying into nowhere? In the latter case, how do the rest connect (=not miss), through knowledge of the Creed, correct ritual?

I'm pretty sure if you pray "to" the "wrong" god, God will still hear it. And depending on what you pray, He may even decide to help you out. Like, if you ask to "know Him more" then He'd try to lead you to saving faith in Him, whatever that may actually be. If that's what the real God requires to end up in happy land, whatever it's called. The key here is "what do they follow", not "does God hear them" or whatever. Now, I'm not sure what gets you to happy land for Muslims, but for Christianity it is pretty clear-cut, and thus it is also clear-cut to say what doesn't get you there. And if we define a "follower of God" to be "someone that will go to happy land when they croak" then it's also clear-cut to say who is actually following God.

[Nightmare]

Going back to lack of power. God couldn't prevent his original scriptures from becoming corrupted. At least he was able to write new ones, though. Which are now right. I guess. So some lack of power, but not a complete lack of power. After all, the integrity of the current scriptures are apparently A+.

Not a lack of power, but a choice He made. Perhaps the time was not right, perhaps He plain didn't want to do it. We do consider God as omnipotent, so there's no "lack of power" here, only His decisions. Which yes, are mysterious because we are also taught that God cannot be comprehended as He should be.

But you are also taught that we are "wrong", yes? Okay, maybe blasphemers and heretics are too strong, but "wrong" we can run with, right? We are, after all, taught to love everyone, even our enemies. So certainly non-enemies should be loved.

Not entirely wrong, but we are told that some of your ideologies, such as the idea of the Trinity, are wrong, because it goes into the realms of polytheism (God doesn't have an equal, or a son, and both are worshipped as aspects of God when we are really, really adamant about God being just One, etc.). We do believe in both Jesus and the Holy Spirit (aka Gabriel), however, we just don't consider them aspects of God. Jesus is merely a disciple and prophet of God (though one of the five great prophets), and Gabriel is His servant. Otherwise, many of our other ideologies are very similar to your own (including the love thing you just mentioned).

I wonder how many muslims are taught like you, to have unity with other monotheists, and how many are taught, shall we say, other things.

Almost all that I mentioned here has been from our scriptures. But, just like many people of other religions, many Muslims do not pay any heed to these scriptures, whether it be not really getting it (i.e. they read but don't really take any lessons) or just not reading them at all.

I mean, dancing in the streets when bad stuff happens to Americans is bad.

Well, that's just bad manners.

[Esau of Isaac]

Strawman, but whatever. He didn't punish them for developing a sense of right and wrong. He punished them for disobedience. I mean, you say two people can do anything on the planet except one little thing, don't eat from that one tree, and they do. Why wouldn't that result in punishment?

Because he's omnipotent and omniscient, so couldn't have been very much against it. He's also punishing people that had no sense of right and wrong for disobedience.

On the one hand, sure, he influenced them so "free will" might not be the right phrase for it, but consider that he allowed them to form their own opinions in the first place.

And is then manipulating them so they don't have free will so as to purposely create conflict.

Yes, he's punishing them for certain things. Say, Sodom and Gamorrah. But they actually had free reign over themselves for quite a while. I mean, they became his enemies in the first place because of that "free will."

Which somehow justifies destroying them all utterly? If the Bible's to believed entire groups of people were systematically slain for "being evil." As in women and children killed, buildings razed, and even the cattle killed.

Mass-slaughter doesn't strike me as something conducive to free will.

If they had all the knowledge of the bible downloaded into their brains from the beginning (and thus pretty irrefutible evidence of the existence of a deity unless society explained away said knowledge some other way), would they have been free to make those choices? All I'm arguing for here is the ridiculousness of the statement

They don't have the actual freedom to make any of the choices as well. God is omniscient and it's expressed more than once that what will occur is pre-ordained.

Not entirely wrong, but we are told that some of your ideologies, such as the idea of the Trinity, are wrong, because it goes into the realms of polytheism (God doesn't have an equal, or a son, and both are worshipped as aspects of God when we are really, really adamant about God being just One, etc.). We do believe in both Jesus and the Holy Spirit (aka Gabriel), however, we just don't consider them aspects of God. Jesus is merely a disciple and prophet of God (though one of the five great prophets), and Gabriel is His servant. Otherwise, many of our other ideologies are very similar to your own (including the love thing you just mentioned).

It's confusing, but traditionally Trinitarianism holds that while God exists as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, he is in fact one being. They are essentially three aspects of one divinity. They are supposed to be different, yet also one and the same.