[@catchamber]

Yes, I am sure we should weigh things on what humans deem meritable rather than the cosmic entirety of everything in the context of a being that is considered all knowing and all powerful. Excellent standards set there, I can in no way foresee how that is a logical fallacy and false equivalency. Retort aside, it appears you are not grasping that the God in question is [i]offering[/i] not [i]demanding[/i] a relationship and or freedom in return for submission. I will repeat it again, the philosophy of this faith goes that in order for one to be free of their sin and evils - those imposed on them by the choices of their forefathers and the way Satan manipulated them - they must bend knee and submit, but they are [i]not[/i] forced to. It is entirely and completely the person's choice, consequences for both actions laid bare.

That said, do excuse me if I take your holding of God to your standards as a nonsensical argument. You are legitimately saying in essence, "Well I know, or people know that they know, better than God, because our standards are better and we have better ethics." That is an irrational argument and I will not entertain it, I apologize. Feel free to believe what you personally want, but on this subject that has no weight.

Proceeding to the argument of free will versus God's plan, I propose it this following way; you may choose any action you deem fit but God, being able to foresee and know all outcomes, will always be at least one step ahead of you if not unquestionably more. You are allowed to choose because no matter what you do choose there is no way you can interfere or intervene in a way that would not benefit him. You might not call this free will but at that point you are using your own definitions, as you oft do, for something regarded as a settled matter in its context. There is no conflict of function other than the ones people attempt to enforce on the debate - legitimately nothing is preventing God from being both all powerful and all knowing while you retain free will, because in the end, he will always circumvent you because he will always know exactly how to, leaving your choices to be your own and the results determined from them, but always to his benefit.

Transitioning completely, no, you are reading exactly what you want to - entirely out of context as I proved - what you desire from the argument you are making. You are legitimately stating that I am incorrect because of one passage, which by technical and purest form in absolute isolate is true, but [i]no one[/i] operates in that vacuum and to claim they do is willful ignorance. To dismantle this further, the outcome you are talking about requires the absolute destruction and dissolution of the old Heaven and Earth, remade by God - legitimately making "all things new" - and all people who have died and given themselves to him to be reborn as he promised them from the start. It says nothing in there or at all about how "your personal comfort and consolation are my goal" when it is pretty evident the rule of the Kingdom of Heaven and God is the end goal. Your happiness is granted as reward for participation and good loyalty, not just for existing; you do not get a participation trophy.

Never the less, just because God has foreseen that you will sin and knows that you will sin, does not mean he will intervene with his shield at the ready to stay your hand. He is not obligated to, in fact, there is no apparent desire to. Why? Because sin is a choice, this is repeated time and again, being the very reason people need ask for atonement and pray for forgiveness when they do sin. No one is forcing people to do this, so however "petty" it is, is your perception. As far as I can see, and as far as history demonstrates, being able to continue to make the same or worse mistake time and time again so you can retain your own independent agency then return to submit for forgiveness isn't something you see in the real world; the idea of it is very inhuman. I know of no person who, no matter how many times you fail in your oaths, what a fool you make of yourself, how humiliating you violate yourself, or how evil you act, will always forgive you if you are sincere.

As for the "no justification of Hell", do not humor yourself too much. The justification is pretty evident throughout the Bible, in that man was told not to do one thing - of the countless and many things he was allowed to do - yet still was fooled by the deceiver, cast out of paradise, the traitor angels cast out too, and man told that for his failures from here on out would have actual consequence, that consequence being without God and dying a death. The justification seems pretty clear and evident, the same philosophy for why say, prison exists to use a crude example; you break the law, you are punished. The difference came later that someone who could always forgive you and absolve you of those things was a factor. Arguing that God is responsible for sin is utterly lifting the responsibility off of man and Satan in the drama, which is both naive and foolish; Satan was openly jealous and angry that God favored a lesser being so much so over the far greater angelic hosts and sought to prove to God how fallible and weak man was. The end result that both were punished, which is pretty rational.

Another matter, I would call your thought of "unwarranted demands for respect" a notion that does not take into totality of the thing we are discussing. We are talking about a literal god, [i]the[/i] God of an entire system of faith, and you are claiming that their demands are "irrational and hypocritical". I might say it best with this, "Just who are [i]you[/i]?" It is arrogance at its supreme to say to a literal all-powerful thing, "Well, in [i]my[/i] opinion, I do not like these things." Who are [i]you[/i] again? An absolute nobody, correct? Just any other human being like the rest?

There is no other reasonable way to interpret that approach. It is a demand, unspoken and completely implied. Humans have no special authority or respect they need be granted or due. They are not the glittering, glinting, drifting snowflakes they all think themselves to be, because in the eyes of the religion they are stained by sin - any beauty, admirability or greatness ruined until they are redeemed. In short, I will phrase it my way, "Get over yourselves and your opinions."

And as for it being "retarded" and your "argument" thereafter, consider that a "cute" response, one which I will just smile and nod to, allowing you to stick to it; I know your mind isn't going to change no matter what argument I pose. It is as classically human as anyone could expect and utterly focused upon itself. As for me? I am more than content to admit I take that process of thought less seriously than I do faiths of questionable status or those I outright reject as valid.

Given nothing of value is going to come from debating with you, as it classically hasn't from my experience, feel free to carry on with someone else if you wish.