Nonsense. God knows no more than you do. You are omniscient in matters of your own will.
Amen to that. Religion sucks.
Oge (may I call you Oge?), I actually do believe in the whole Star-Trek-esque quantum branching of reality and each juncture of choice. However, I don’t see that as somehow antithetical to free will.
I call it karmic surfing. So if all of these possibilities and ramifications have been laid out beforehand, we have to reconsider the ‘self’. Are all of my other alter egos me? No, but they do share in some aspect of my self. There exists within me a potential for great evil, as well as magnificent transcendence. There’s gotta be me’s somewhere who actualize those potentials.
So ‘self’ is less about the choices made and the circumstances encountered than it is the little controller that is steering this particular me. My true self is both the sum of all possible me’s as well as this little dude surfing the streams of karmic consciousness.
oldscratch:
So? I don’t see how this negates the general principle being illustrated.
It’s not hypocritical (or whatever word you were trying to think of), since Y had been commanded not to kill. Unless Y had received some sort of divine prophecy telling him that his normal prohobition of murder does not apply to X at this time (and I’m not referring to such an unusual situation), he is still commanded not to kill X. Even if he had some sort of divine knowledge that X was destined to die, he never received any indication that it was his job to make it happen, therefore his obligation not to murder is still in force.
G-d did not exhort Y to kill X. In fact, he commanded him not to murder. He did provide a temptation, but what is the point of a commandment that there is no temptation to violate it? A commandment means you’re supposed to do the commandment, even if your natural inclination is that you’re tempted not to.
Well, that’s pretty much the same question as “How do we know free choice exists at all?” Free choice is one of the tenets of Western religion. It can’t be proven. However, what I tried to illustrate is the religious view (at least the Orthodox Jewish one) of how G-d’s having a divine plan and human free choice co-exist.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Chaim, there’s simply too many holes in your reasoning that I see. For one thing, you said, “A commandment means you’re supposed to do the commandment, even if your natural inclination is that you’re tempted not to.” but in the very example you are using, the driving force is not natural inclination, but the action of god. How can god possibly be worth worshipping if he is actively and emphatically trying to make you break rules, which he himself made and for which he will punish you for?
And how do you reckon with mass death? You really believe that all of the people on the flight over lockerbie would have died separately had terrorists not planted a bomb? Shouldn’t that mean that stillbirths and miscarriages should have dropped by a super significant amount once abortion was legalized and practiced on a grand scale in this country?
Libertarian,
If God knows no more than I do, then he is unworthy of worship. However, the Xtian idea of God is universally omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. This certainly implies that said sky fairy should “know more than I do.” Besides, if I am omniscient in matters of my own will, and I were able to create living organisms in such a way that I knew everything about them, they wouldn’t have free will either.
jb: I would be honored to be called “Oge.” 
I swear to, umm…whatever, that I’m not trying to be arrogant here, but while I do agree that the “many branches” approach to cause and effect is attractive, there’s not a whole lot of evidence to support it. Even quantum mechanics, the idea’s supposed foundation, is having a hard time backing it up these days. The whole thing rather hinges on the speed of light. Check this out for an overview:
http://dabui.econ.hc.keio.ac.jp/~ken/physics-faq/FTL.html
That sort of means, given the evidence that I’ve seen, that as attractive as the idea is, there’s no true logical grounding for it. If there is, I’d be more than happy to see it.
cmkeller:
All of which makes this “God” being damned petty. He creates us to have these urges (I’m speaking here of biological urges…sex, etc.,) then he commands us not to pay them heed. Then he says, “if you don’t do as I say, regardless of the fact that I created you to feel the opposite way, you’re going to Hell.” Sounds like we’re nothing but playthings to me.
Since when? Look, here is a link to the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church – of which a majority of Xtians belong. Show me where in there it says anything of the sort. It does say God is almighty – and I suppose that is basically true, but that is not the same thing as those attributes you have listed above.
And I can’t believe Jews now believe not only that everyone goes to heaven but also in predetermination. Makes me wonder if Calvin wasn’t a double agent! 
jb_farley:
No, G-d merely gives him the opportunity. The inclination is his natural one.
But he will also reward you for obeying those rules in the face of temptation, whereas you get no reward for obeying a rule when there is no temptation to break it (because why do you deserve a reward for not doing what you simply can’t do?). Why do you think only about the negative angle? Of course if you only think of the potential punishment and not of the potential reward you don’t see G-d as a decent being.
Ogre:
Not true. He commands us to use them properly (by his definition, of course). He does not command us to ignore them completely; merely that we harness them to his service rather than become driven by them completely.
See my above comments to jb_farley. Why do you insist on emphasizing the negative and ignoring the positive?
Chaim Mattis Keller
In matters of your will, as I made plain. If He knew more than you do in matters of your will, then you would not have His Spirit in your heart.
Not about your will. He is IN you.
On the contrary, they would have no free will if you knew more than they do. Are you familiar with the Austrian School theory of an economic praxis? If so, you will find an analogy there.
Sometimes it seems that atheists, especially the evangelical ones, presume that they have no free will if a camera (metaphor for God) is following them around, and that just makes no sense. Just because what you do is recorded and seen does not mean that you are not free to pull out your woody and shake it at the camera.
After all, you’re doing that now.
jmullaney,
Thank you for the link to the Catechism. It’s very much appreciated. I’ve responded below with scriptural basis for my statement.
Omniscience:
John 21:17: “Thou knowest all things.”
John 2:24, 25: “But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.”
John 16:30: “Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.”
Psalms 139:1 6: “O Lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my down sitting and mine up rising; thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path, and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thy hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.”
Omnipresence:
Psalms 139:7 10: “Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.”
Omnipotence:
Job 42:2: “I know that thou canst do everything.”
Now, I don’t believe all this for a second, but it is in the bible.
Libertarian:
Please see above. This is what the scriptural foundation of Christianity says. “Thou knowest all things” has no “wiggle room” for matters of personal will.
Oh, and the “camera” didn’t create the person it’s watching.
By the way, your snide little dig at the end of your post was inappropriate to intellectual discourse. I would appreciate an apology.
cmkeller:
I understand your points. Thank you for the refutation. However, the whole idea (to me) collapses because of the vagueness of the terms of God’s supposed will. One might think that the dictates of my creator would speak to me at least as clearly as the desire for sex. They don’t. In fact, they are so unclear that various parts of the bible completely contradict each other.
Ogre:
Well, we Orthodox Jews believe we’ve got an Oral Tradition dating back to Sinai just like the written text most people are familiar with, that clarifies what seems unclear. This is what has eventually been written down in the Talmud. But I do understand how, for one unversed in it, it can seem unclear.
Chaim Mattis Keller
So, cmkeller, how do I get this information? I’d love to find out what you mean.
Well, OK, but this is taken completely out of context.
There is no way to know what Peter meant by this statement. All things regarding to what? Furthermore, if Jesus already knew the answer – why the heck is he asking? This is actually more of a counter-example if you ask me.
So? Jesus knew what men were like. That only requires some wisdom. You’ve never heard the phrase “ya know how people are!” before? They saw the signs and believed in his name. But that doesn’t mean they truly believed in him such that he would commit himself to them, because Jesus was not looking for followers who believed in his name because they saw miracles, but rather those who follow his teachings.
John 16:31:"Jesus answered them, “Do you now believe?”
Whoever spoke John 16:30 is probably being sarcastic once you read the near incomprehensible mumbo jumbo Jesus just spoke above it. I guess they didn’t have “:rolleyes:” back then. Jesus’s pointed question might be a mild rebuke to their sarcasm.
Or, on second thought – they simply mean Jesus is wise.
This is clearly someone who is walking with God. God knows them and they know God. You can’t jump from there to omniscience.
Same guy as the last one.
Well, Job is fiction of course. A comedy. God in the story is out to teach Job a lesson, and Job learns it.
Ogre:
Well, if what you mean is information on specific vaguenesses/contradictions in the Bible (Old Testament), the Jewish posters on this board might be able to dig up such info. Although please do not post one of those standard “Biblical contradictions” lists that were written by wise-asses who just want to dis the Bible; stick to specific ones that you have a personal interest in understanding.
If what you mean is information on what G-d expects of people in the general sense, I can give you some resources to tap which reflect my own preferred religion, but I’d prefer to do it off the board in private e-mail to avoid the appearance that I’m trying to “witness” here on the SDMB. Sure, it’s technically allowed, but it’s certainly frowned on. My e-mail address is public on this board.
Chaim Mattis Keller