Ok so first things first, I've been living in Germany most of my life so my english kind of ****...
Up until a few months ago I followed the example of my parents believing in the verbal inspiration of the bible... so the bible is the true and unmistaken word of God.... Meaning there are no Contradictions....
Here we go... (this will be a long one, I hope you can stick to it and give me answers)

1. Assumption, God is All-Loving: God loves every humanbeing and wants everyone to believe in him and come to know him, so enter heaven.
2. Assumption, God is all-powerful, nothing is impossible for God. He can do anything.
3. Assumption, God is All-knwowing, there is nothing God doesn't know, and he can solve any problem.

SO, how if God is All-loving, then he will do everything to save his "beloved creation"... and if God is all-powerful then he is also capable of saving his creation, and if God is All-knowing, then He can come up with the "perfect solution".
So why do still 70-80% of humans go to hell? Why isn't God capable of saving them?
Of course I've heard the "free-will" stuff quite often... but still it should be possible for an all-powerful God despite of the freewill, to show himself to men...?
Further more, does God really do all he can too reach out to people? Why doesn't God do miracles the way he used to 2000 years ago? Why doesn't he speak to people in their dreams, why doesn't he do miraclulas things anymore?
Another thing concerning God not doing all he can too reach man, why does he use humans to reach out to humans... the christians are so full of themselves and don't spread the gospel so often, because they are so lazy or whatever... so why doesn't he come up with, I don't know a personal angel for everyone, reminding him of the truth....
I mean would it be a contradiction with the free-will if God would show himself to man...? I mean there surely would still be people that wouldn't want to surrender there lives... and Ok they can deserve hell... but those who would theoretically surrender and accept God IF he would showhimself would prove that God today doesn't do all he can do....
So those are some quick thoughts of mine... it's kind of late here and I have school tomorrow, SO I hope it all made sense and I hope whoever survived reading all the way to the end have some thoughts...
Thanks!
Ciao!
-=Mr. Pink=-


Edited by Terminator

You have some good questions, and I will try to answer some of them.

1) Why does G-D not show himself to us /people?
He did at one time and the people at that time did not believe that he was who he said he was.

John 1:10
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

John 1:11
He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

John 1:12
But as many as recieved him, to them gave he power to become the sons of G-D, even to them that believe on his name:

So do you think that the people of today that are so wrapped up into them self would believe that He is G-D if he would show him self physically as a Human being again.

Thanks for answering...
But your answer doesn't make any sense. You are forgetting the factor of all-powerful... God has to be able to show himself in a way that it would have an effect...
Another verse that adds to my questions:
Matthew 11:21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes"
So why doesn't he do his "mighty works" where it would count, where it would effect people?
That's all for now, g2g
Ciao!
-=Mr. Pink=-

Sorry that I did not finish all your questions but it was late. should Have some rain days this week, like the rest of the week and I will try to answer some more of your questions. Thank you

Hi, Mr. Pink.

The first assumption you presented above is not entirely agreed upon by all Christians. Some, like my own Baptist pastor for instance, classify God's love into two camps: a love for those who are "His" and a love for those who are "not His". That is, there are those whom God has chosen out of the world to give to His Son "collectively", as a bride, to relate with Him and rejoice in Him for all eternity. Yet the others are thought of as "tares" among the wheat, who have no value to the farmer. He loves them also in that He gives the rain and the sunshine to them as He does us, He gives to them the beauty of the world and even personal intimacy as a symbol of what He offers them in perfect purity and holiness through Jesus Christ. But who said that He owed them a place among the chosen? Yet He will not punish them in any way worse than what they deserve for the things that they do.

You might ask, why punish me then? I was trying to be truthful, trying to do just the kind of things that Jesus said were important ... why should I go to hell just because I didn't believe?

There is a very interesting pyschological twist to that. Because you have to ask yourself why, if you are trying to be truthful and say you believe in the things Jesus told you were right ... why then do you call Him a liar? Why don't you believe Him when He told you He came from God and died so that all of your sins would be forgiven? If you really are seeking the truth, you will believe Him, and you "belong" to Him (and always did). If you tell me that His spirit and those of his disciples was one of lying and deception, then you do not belong to Him (and never did).

If you plan to tell God that it is not fair that He didn't choose you, ask yourself now why you are not choosing Him. If you say that you do believe, but don't understand why this would be fair for all those other people out there, then you must realize that for each one of them, the question is the same. If they believe holding anger against their enemy is the greater good (than showing kindness and mercy), then they reject the spirit of God. If they believe the opposite way, then they believe in the spirit of God. Continue in this way with other matters of the spirit, and the person either accepts Christ for revealing the perfected spirit of goodness (the greatest good), of they demand in their stubbornness that Jesus was "half-baked" and that they know better.

One assumption about God is for sure. He is perfectly just. So when all is said and done, you will not say to His face that He should have done differently.

So the short answer to your question is that God does not force anyone to believe in Him. He gives abundantly to all every bit of goodness that they receive in this world, and then offers them a perfect world to come, if they only take up their cross (die to self-centeredness), and follow Him. But to some He also gives a little extra ... the ability to hear His call, a spirit of receptivity to the idea of dying to self. And these are His, and have been ordained so from the foundation of the world.

It's easy to say, well He should have given that to all of us, not just some of us. But who are you to argue with God? Did any of us deserve any of these gifts? How? What did we do for God? And those who walk an evil path increasingly away from God simply make their own bed, which God in His justness will make them lie in.

Tough reality. But the question is, will you reject Him because you think your idea of "the way it should have been done" is better, or do you accept Him with great thankfulness that because you accepted, you know you were chosen? Maybe that's the very criteria that send people to their own bed of hell ... the rebellious nature that says they want no part of a God who doesn't do things their way. Yet He made the offer perfectly clear. All you had to do was accept the reality of your sins and the need for reconciliation with a God in whom you cannot relate or rejoice while hanging on to those sins as if in them you had the ever-lasting life and deep meaning that you desire.

Sorry to be so long-winded. Let me know if you have more questions about this. A lot of it is just my opinion.


Arythmael

Arythmael wrote (View Post): › It's easy to say, well He should have given that to all of us, not just some of us. But who are you to argue with God? Did any of us deserve any of these gifts? How? What did we do for God? And those who walk an evil path increasingly away from God simply make their own bed, which God in His justness will make them lie in.

That's an interesting thought... but I don't really think that anyone deserves any of it... of course not... yet still you don't try to answer the conflict that exists between an all-loving and all-powerful God... Eventhough noone deserves what you say he gives only to some... but by the definition the bible gives us about God... he would actually have to give it to everyone!
Ciao!
-=David=-

Mr. Pink wrote (View Post): › Eventhough noone deserves what you say he gives only to some... but by the definition the bible gives us about God... he would actually have to give it to everyone!

Well! If you could really prove this to me using Scripture and a reasonable hermeneutics that affects a solid exegesis of the text, I'm sure my pastor would love to hear about this.

I'm half-kidding with the use of all of those big terms that I myself only recently found out the meanings of. Seriously though, I would like it if you could show me where in the Bible we are left with no other conclusion than the fact that God would actually have to give this chosen status to everyone. And I will indeed ask my pastor to then explain to me why you are not correct in your argument. Personally, I've never seen anything that suggests this. And fundamentally, I think the problem is that no one, no single human being fully comprehends the depth and wisdom of God's love. Christians are always striving to learn more and more about what it is like and how it is so different than what we normally understand as love!

It's a losing battle to attempt to discredit God by using human concepts filled with human limitations, and then applying them to God in order to draw conclusions about Him. We have to read and understand the entire text of the Scriptures, pray earnestly about their meaning, relate them to what we've experienced in our lives, try out what Jesus told us to do, a little bit at a time if necessary, and only slowly ... very slowly, and often painfully, discover what the nature of God's love is really like. It's not the milk-toast, "everybody's beautiful" kind of love we like to think of these days. It's very opinionated (and rightly so) about just what is wrong and why.

I'd like to see how you explain that God is obliged (what, by some higher law than Him?) to give the receptivity to all which would allow them to accept Him and turn away from their rebellion against Him. He is the highest law, and He will deal with them justly ... they will get no better and no worse than they deserve. The only difference between them and us is that we will get better than we deserve. If there is anything that is unjust, it is that which He gives us ... but to our benefit, and it is called His "grace".

I look forward to the verses you present, and your supporting arguments, Mr. Pink.


Arythmael

I only read the question, not any of the replies, I will do that when I have more time, because this is also something I have been thinking for a LONG time, and have been seriously involved in research wise for a few years now.

This is going to fly in the face of what alot of people believe, I'm sorry if its offisive, but know, I am not "set" in my opinion about this, this is just where I happen to be currently.

the simple solution to this question, there is no hell.

let me explain myself.

The word hell did not always mean what we currently think of as hell, the fire and tortour idea came from greek mythology, Hades. In the bible, there are something like 76 (if I remember correctly, its 65 times in the OT and 11 times in the NT, though I'm going on memory here ) refferences to what we call hell. These words however are not h-e-l-l, hell is translated FROM the following words; Sheol, Hades, Gehenna. Now these words are only "sometimes" translated into HELL. As an example Sheol is translated into hell only HALF of the times the word is used in the original manuscripts, the other half of the time it is translated into GRAVE, as in 6 feet under grave. Hades literaly means "the unseen" and its definition was such all the way up till I believe it was the 1200's (take a look at some old english dictionaries, most have no refference to HELL). And Gehenna, if I remember correctly, was the city dump outside of Jeruselem where they burned their trash (closest to our image of hell, but only used once in the bible, and it was equating the afterlife to the dump, but could be taken much differently, do yourself a favor and look up these passages). A nice chart that lists the various translations of these words in different bibles is listed here;
http://what-the-hell-is-hell.com/HellStudy/HellCharts.htm

Now, there are various roads this belief can lead to, but bear with me, I'll explain the thought process I personaly went through to reach this conclusion. Its my "opinion" ( I say opinion because I can most definitely see where the concept of Hell makes perfect sense OTHER than the contridiction raised by the initial question in this thread ) that when we die we are "dead" until the day of judgment (if anyone wishes me to explain Lazarus and Rich Man I'll be happy to do so). This makes sense when one takes into to account the absence of the constriction of time to God and heaven (there is a current theory in which time as we know it is a direct result of gravity, this has scientific proof (clocks moving at different speeds under different gravity) but the extent of the implications is what I am getting at, for more on that read "time and eternity" by Werner Gitt (though there are many aspects of Gitts work I dont agree with, such as his belief in a literal hell)).

This is what I believe the bible reffers to when speaking about hell. In revelations and daniel, the two prophecy books about the final judgment, there is what we have come to know hell as "the lake of fire". However throughout the bible fire plays a much different role than how we think of the lake of fire, that is one of purification and refinement. God also equates himself to fire several times (burning bush, fire in the sky, eyes of fire, flaming sword ect.). Its my opinion that the lake of fire is a purification process for those not included in the first ressurection/judgment/millenial reign of christ on earth. The Lake of fire is said to contain "fire and brimstone". Brimstone, or a form of sulfur, back in the day (and still used in a way today) was used for cleansing rituals, not its bad odor. Thus if we reinturpret the lake of fire into what OTHER meaning it could have, it is a lake of purification, not of pain and torture.

Now many people say "well then everyone goes to heaven right?, and if so, whats the motivation for doing right?", to this I say, "If you have to ask that question, you obviously need to rethink your life and your heart".
Again not to be offensive, trust me, I'm no gem, my existence probably deserves to be snuffed out just due to the thoughts in my head.

This is why this makes sense to me. In this life, we are told that the righteous go through persecution by the world, we are tested, we are tried, we are REFINED in the glory of God. The purification process via the lake of fire would be just that, only within another period of time, not life, but "possibly" the same type of process, but definitely the same outcome. Remember the bible does say that no-one comes to the God unless called by the holy spirit, THAT is not a choice in being a believer, that is a "calling", thus the entire world is NOT given the same oportunities as believers in this life. Anyone need me to quote how many times Jesus is said to be the savior of the ENTIRE WORLD? If its Gods will, what is going to prevent His will from being done? US? Take a look at who modern christianity puts above Gods will...

I invite anyone who wishes to debate these things with me to do so, as I said, I am open to change in my beliefs about this, however before countering, I suggest considering if a passage is a blanket statement ONLY, or if it can be easily inturpreted into reffering to one of the two judgments (first or white thrown).

I believe that the current concept of HELL being a place of eternal (btw eternal is translated from variations of the word aeonion (sp?) in which the bible reffers to periods after and before, negating the inturpretation of timeless) torment was devised, or subject to the "lost in translation" problem by the early church while converting greek pagans, either as a scare tactic, or, most likely, an hybridization of greek mythology and christianity.

Arythmael

Quote: › Seriously though, I would like it if you could show me where in the Bible we are left with no other conclusion than the fact that God would actually have to give this chosen status to everyone. And I will indeed ask my pastor to then explain to me why you are not correct in your argument. Personally, I've never seen anything that suggests this. And fundamentally, I think the problem is that no one, no single human being fully comprehends the depth and wisdom of God's love.

I agree, there is nothing that SAYS God HAS TO give everyone the oportunity. Well there are a few that come to mind that suggest that God WOULD, but due to the lack of time (because of the previous post) I will get back to you on that one.

Explain this to me if you would.
Paul says that, "the carnal (natural fleshly) mind is enmity against God; it is not subject to the laws of God, neither is it able" (Rom. 8:7).

Its not able, thats a funny way to put it, isn't it? If its not able then how praytell are those living with carnal minds "able" to choose God IF HE has not chosen them?

I admit, this is a weak arguement, but its intended to get the gears working.

Geez, I need to stop already, this topic obviously is an important one to me, lol...

One more passage that I would like to bring attention to. Romans chapter 2 is probably my favorite chapter in the Bible, because of its implications. Someone please explain if you will what this means, not in the context of there being a hell or not (unless you'd like) but rather explain it in context of your opinion about what you've said within this post.

Romans 2:8 - 15
But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
For there is no respect of persons with God.
For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)


Another passage that is clear as day once one considers the idea of the non-existence of the modern definition of Hell.

1 Timothy 4:9-11:

This is a faithful saying worthy of all acceptance. For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. (KJV)

Hi lqdtrinity,

lqdtrinity wrote (View Post): › Explain this to me if you would. Paul says that, "the carnal (natural fleshly) mind is enmity against God; it is not subject to the laws of God, neither is it able" (Rom. 8:7). Its not able, thats a funny way to put it, isn't it? If its not able then how praytell are those living with carnal minds "able" to choose God IF HE has not chosen them? I admit, this is a weak arguement, but its intended to get the gears working.

I'm all for getting the "gears working", as you say. These are the kinds of questions I myself am in constant dialogue with Christians about in order to figure out what the truth is. Oh, I believe very strongly that Jesus came from God to save the world from sins, etc. But all of these questions about how and why God is doing what He is doing are far from resolved definitively and documented within the Christian Church. That is, the kinds of arguments you present here I've never seen dealt with logically and in a codified way, and then given the stamp of approval by any Christian church (perhaps Orthodoxy or Catholicism have this, but I've never been pointed to it).

As for your argument, I don't think it's weak. In fact, as you look at Protestant Christian doctrine, moving along the continuum of emphasis upon "man's free will" -- further away from Arminianism and closer to Calvinism -- you will begin to see more and more agreement that it is exactly as you have said: without the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit (a kind of activation of their chosen status) even the chosen would not choose God on their own. When discussing this recently with my own pastor we got down to splitting hairs, because while we agreed men were not able to choose God without His intervention, my pastor claimed that God had to alter the man's "inner man" in order to make him receptive; I claimed that man was already receptive, but did not know really who God was until He revealed Himself to that same, unaltered man.

I've said recently in other posts that God did not give this "receptivity" to all men from birth, but this is a concept that I admit I need to give more thought to. I think (and like you, I'm open to being convinced otherwise) that people show all kinds of signs that God perfectly fulfills what all people seem to be looking for, albeit in the corrupted and transient things of this world. Thus, all it would take was an undistracted presentation of Himself in order to gain that response of acceptance that we call conversion. However, Jesus makes it clear that those who are His hear His voice. Reading the verse in context I think makes clear the idea that those who are NOT His are unable to "get it" ... they don't hear His voice, they don't fully understand the power, meaning, and significance of sacrificial death. And in His parable, Jesus even describes Abraham as finally telling the rich man on the other side of the uncrossable chasm (hell?) that even if a man were to come back from the dead (referring to Jesus Himself) those others would not believe. This also indicates an inborn lack of receptivity.

So in summary, I think I can agree that one way or the other God has to intervene if any man is going to be saved from his sins and become "like God", and thus able to commune "with God". I'm just not sure whether the man is changed directly, as if surgically operated on, or if the man is changed as a result of the intervention, like falling peacefully to sleep after being well-fed. Where do you see a problem with this concept?


Arythmael

Thanks for responding Arythmael

Im not realy sure I understand the last question

Quote: › So in summary, I think I can agree that one way or the other God has to intervene if any man is going to be saved from his sins and become "like God", and thus able to commune "with God". I'm just not sure whether the man is changed directly, as if surgically operated on, or if the man is changed as a result of the intervention, like falling peacefully to sleep after being well-fed. Where do you see a problem with this concept?

Sorry, brain spasm, did I imply one way or the other? well, I probably did and just dont understand the question.

I'll take a stab at answering it anyways. I actualy would have to say I think its a little bit of both, a direct change caused by God followed up by an effect which changes a person like a student growing in knowledge as he/she gains more experience.

This is completely just my opinion, well all of it is, but this part I cannot back up with anything other than opinion. I don't consider this existence one which we are to "make our choice" like the majority of Christianity pushes. Rather I consider this existence, a field trip of sorts, used to train us in right and wrong. And that only certain people are called by God to see whatever it is He wants them to see and understand, and even fewer who either have or are given the ability to follow what God tells them. I don't think this is mans choice, but Gods, not mans power, but Gods.

This doesn't mean that I think we have a pardon to sin, rather that God uses our sin to train us. I've been called a heritic many times for this view, I've sort of gotten used to it now. But at least right now, I can't help but see it this way. I don't think God is sinnfull, or that he is evil, just as I don't think God is evil for allowing a small child to be raped and die (not an easy subject for most). I trust that God knows what he is doing. I also can see, that from a child haivng to go through that, the lessons that are learned by everyone effected. Plus, this life, I see as just a classroom for what is to come.

Im not sure if that helped at all, if not, could you try rephrasing the question, and Ill try again. Thanks

lqdtrinity wrote (View Post): › Im not sure if that helped at all, if not, could you try rephrasing the question, and Ill try again. Thanks

Hi lqdtrinity, good to hear from you again.

I had to think hard why I asked the question now, but I think it's because the opening statement of yours (quoted below) gave me the impression that despite having no direct evidence from Scripture, you still found it reasonable to believe that God would simply give everyone the capacity to respond to Him and accept Him, e.g., without any special intervention.

lqdtrinity wrote (View Post): › I agree, there is nothing that SAYS God HAS TO give everyone the oportunity. Well there are a few that come to mind that suggest that God WOULD, but due to the lack of time (because of the previous post) I will get back to you on that one.

I think you answered my question well by pretty much affirming that you agree not all men are given the ability to "hear the voice of God", so to speak. I'm curious, do people really consider you a "heretic" because you think that although we don't have a pardon to sin, God uses our sin to train us? Maybe you were referring to something else, but that certainly doesn't sound outside of mainstream Christian thought. We know very well that God is teaching us humility and mercy for others. And we also know that one of the main ways He does this is by allowing us to sin in some of the worst ways, and then bringing together events in just such a way that we come to realize the ugliness and selfishness that lay in our hearts because we are capable of doing such things. From there we come to God to ask forgiveness and mercy, either fearing the loss of something earthly (like our loved ones) because of what we've done and become, or simply fearing His judgment and the perfect right He would have to send us away from Him forever. Having been shown this mercy and forgiveness, Jesus says, why then should you not show the same mercy for those who transgress against you?

If we go through this whole course (yes, training) with God, we will come out at the end capable of being like Him, and more importantly, wanting to be like Him. This seems like pretty standard Christian doctrine; are you really being considered a heretic for believing this?


Arythmael

HAHA....actualy Yes, I have been called a heretic several times (not on this site, and not all on the internet) for that belief. It's funny because I usualy am not able to even get the part that they would realy have problems with. That being that God knew of the sin ahead of our committing it, allowed it, and is therefore, in a way responsible for it. When I have gotten to that part, you should seriously hear the reactions. But really, the idea that God not just allows sin, but is in effect responsible for sin, to me is just a logical conclusion of God's all-knowing omnipitent nature. It realy doesn't have anything to do with God "being" sinfull in my opinion, but people can't seem to seperate the two.

Now I know that last part is not agreeable to most people, so I don't want to sound like I am assuming you agree with it, but please, if you at least see the point in my saying it, tell me, because not many people have (and reasurance is always welcomed).

Now, leaving the subject of origins aside (I do lean towards creationISM), whether the Adam and Eve story is true or just for use to explain things. I can't help but laugh when people "blame" Eve, or IMO more apropietly Adam, for sinning against God. Its my opinion, that they are not to blame exactly. One can "blame" satan for manipulation, but realy, it was God that created them in a state that was vunerable to the manipulation. However that doesn't mean, to me, that God is "to blame", that simply means that God used that to make a point, one that needed to be made. Again, "if" I get this far, I tend to lose the majority of who's left listening.

The specific scripture that I hear used to say that God will/would give everyone the same oportunity. Now, I think I gave the wrong impression, I do not agree with this, this is just what some use, Ill get to that a little more in a second.

John 1:9 (6-9 shown)
6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

Ha, I actualy couldn't find any more, I tried looking at sites that promote this idea, and found no actualy vesus to back it up, not even the one above. Most people I have heard say that all people have the choice use "and God afforded to all people", but I can't seem to find that.

On the other hand, while looking I found this, and remembered using it before to back up the idea that this free choice to follow God doesn't exist.

Eph 1:11 (sorry for not posting context, I suggesting reading the entire chapter)
11In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,

I think that pretty much sums it up...

Now, this arguement for hell/no hell I have heard before, maybe you can lend your input. The case for the chaff being blown away by the wind is a good one. The chaff is used to help grow the grain (which is said to be the only desireable part), and when the harvest comes the chaff is stripped away. Or a more blunt way of putting it, God raises up him desired population and kills off or send the rest to hell.

I personaly find this to be outside of Gods character for one. Secondly, quite a few sources can be found by searching "processed chaff" that lists processed chaff as a usefull building material. That sort of makes sense if the "lake of fire" was a purification/refinement process.

I could go on an on about this, but I'll let you respond first. If you think about the possibility of there not being a hell, I can pretty much gaurentee you that alot of meanings of scripture will change. Whether or not you think either one is more in Gods character, well, thats your call. Though I would like to toss this concept around a little with you.

Mr. Pink wrote (View Post): › So why do still 70-80% of humans go to hell? Why isn't God capable of saving them?

First, where did you get this percentage? As far as I know, no one alive has counted the people in heaven or hell.

Now, there is another hidden assumption here: Hell is a place only of eternal punishment.

Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle did an update of Inferno. It's very entertaining reading. Like Dante, they slam people who disagree with them or have wronged them by placing them in particularly embarrassing situations in Hell. However, they do approach the problem of why a loving God has what appears to be a private torture chamber.

Their answer: Hell isn't a torture chamber. It's an asylum for the theologically insane. Having tried to get your attention all through life and been rejected, God is now trying to get your attention all thru eternity.

Quote: › Of course I've heard the "free-will" stuff quite often... but still it should be possible for an all-powerful God despite of the freewill, to show himself to men...?

There's no way to get around freewill. Not unless God turns people into puppets. And that deprives us of having meaningful lives. Any subtle or overt intervention that interferes with free will also deprives our lives of choices, and thus of meaning by having real consequences of our choices.

Quote: › Further more, does God really do all he can too reach out to people? Why doesn't God do miracles the way he used to 2000 years ago? Why doesn't he speak to people in their dreams, why doesn't he do miraclulas things anymore?

Doesn't God speak to people? In dreams and otherwise? Many living people report on a personal relationship with God. You apparently don't have one, but are you sure you would recognize God speaking?

Would we recognize miracles if we saw them? Or do we pass them off as "coincidence"? In 1862 Lee lost a copy of orders that detailed the movements of his entire army. It was found by Union soldiers and brought to the commander -- Gen. McClellan. The result was the battle of Antietam. Now, without those orders no one has any doubt that Lee would have beaten McClellan and the Confederacy gained its independence. Even with his enemy's plans, all McClellan could get was a draw. Now, the Confederacy had an investigation on how the orders got lost. All copies were accounted for. So where did that copy come from? Miracle and intervention by God or just an unexplained historical quirk?

Quote: › Another thing concerning God not doing all he can too reach man, why does he use humans to reach out to humans... the christians are so full of themselves and don't spread the gospel so often, because they are so lazy or whatever... so why doesn't he come up with, I don't know a personal angel for everyone, reminding him of the truth....

Didn't God directly speak to Moses via the Burning Bush and other encounters? How well did that work out? Moses takes a short sabbatical and the Hebrews make a golden calf!

Again, many millions of people report "speaking" to God thru that "small, still voice". Maybe many people simply don't listen.

A final assumption: there is a Hell for eternal punishment.

This is not a concept in the OT. People die and lose consciousness. Sometime later they are revived with their bodies. No Hell. The modern concept of Hell arose during the intertestament period among a sect called the Essenes. Part of that concept got incorporated into the NT. Perhaps the whole concept of a Hell is a mistaken idea.

This is very similar to the point ldqtrinity made. It's something that, IMO, needs to be considered. Is Hell in its modern form a human construct and something that does not really exist?