The traditional understanding of Hell is pretty much straight-up horror, often stated to be so horrible that what's actually in it beggars all description. The real Fridge Horror comes in understanding the philosophy and theology that justifies this. Hell is Laser-Guided Karma for the entire human race. What we could have done to deserve this is not the right question; the categories and consequences of the sins committed are irrelevant. What justifies Hell is what we are. Infamous tyrants such as Hitler, for all their notoriety, would have been relatively petty and unknown sinners had others not given them massive influence and power over the lives of millions and freed them from the majority of the adverse social consequences of their evil deeds. The vast majority of even the most benign and benevolent people you know, in the same position, would commit the very same kinds of atrocities they did. Given an eternity to develop human nature, we hypothetically might be able to develop a Hell all by ourselves.
Technically Fire and Brimstone Hell refers to Cessation of Existence to Deader than Dead, not eternal torture. The eternal flames are reference to Gehenna; an incinerator for criminals and trash. It was when the concept of Duality introduced by Zoroasterianism made it's way into most religions is when the concepts of a good and bad afterlife came into being, they then combined the flames of Gehenna with that of the House of Lies (Zoroasterianism's version of hell) and the pagan concept of immortality of the soul, and even then the House of Lies was one of Reformation of the soul rather than eternal suffering.
It is made worse when you consider the actual criteria for entry. Its not being good or evil that determines the destination, its whether or not you believed in the deity that determined entry. You could live like a saint but not knowing the head honcho exists gets you eternal damnation.
Actually many Christians believe that is does require more than just simply believing in the deity to get into heaven one could still go to hell even if they do. You'll still would have to be good person and try to change your ways.
And then there's the idea that you can define "evil" as simply as "the pursuit of a lesser good." You could spend your whole life thinking of yourself as a good person because you strive to do nothing wrong, only to find that, when it's time to give an accounting, everything you do is written off as evil because as good as it was, it wasn't the best you could have done.
It is truly doubtful that anyone in their right mind would consider evil to be "the pursuit of a lesser good". when evil is clearly defines as a Profound immorality. Also "lesser good" is still good why would be pass off as evil because it wasn't good enough that would literally be a contradiction . Good is good whether it's a greater good like saving someone life or a lesser good like give some spare change to a homeless person.
In Zoroastrianism , watch out for dead acrobats.note In that religion, how good you are determines how wide the "bridge to heaven" is. If you're evil, it's like a string, if you're good, it's like a 6-lane highway.
The thought of any eternity (even including Heaven) is Fridge Horror to some, as explained at length in many examinations of "Who Wants to Live Forever?" In eternity, this is no longer merely a hypothetical question. By many accounts, you cannot cease to exist there. If you had nothing you could think to do there, boredom by itself would be a terrible and inescapable torment. This has been the basis for not only many theological treatises, but many not-so-traditional depictions of Hell in fiction, such as the Ironic Hell and the Self-Inflicted Hell.
You could make the argument that if you were in actual heaven, it by nature will not allow or have room for one to become bored, and when I say "not allow" I don't mean unwillingly.
Then the afterlife would consist of wiki-walking TV Tropes? Okay.
That is really a big if. One would have to have about no artistic imagination or social skill what so ever to find themselves in that kind of situation. just considering the amount people in heaven and that there are next to no limits to the things a person can do. Worst case scenario it would no more boring than every day life on Earth. Hell on the other hand was meant to be that way.
That would really depend on what version of heaven one is referring to, and as mention before it also depends on the creativity of the person (some religions even depict human as being able to create their own worlds, visit others, and be able to see what happens around the whole universe) and if thatís the case it's really a Self-Inflicted Hell . Many religions even say that heaven isn't for eternity like Christianity, for example. And itís not likely reincarnation would really solve the problem without opening up a whole other can of worms
The whole idea of Who Wants to Live Forever trope becoming a problem in a real heaven is nonsense. God has existed since the beginning of the universe and plans to live forever, you don't hear Him talk about getting bored of His immortality. If we were perfect like God is then we wouldn't be capable of getting bored of our immortality.
My own personal beliefs about "Heaven" are that it isn't this one-size-fits-all place where everyone has to sit on clouds playing harps and praying, or anything else rooted in Sunday School lessons given to small children. My view of Heaven is that it is the ultimate reality, i.e. everything you wanted to do on Earth but never could as well as everything you experienced while on Earth that you found supremely enjoyable. You also have the bonus of never having to experience pain, suffering, illness, deprivation, or anything else that makes living life on this plane of existence difficult. It's also a place where you'll never get bored or discontent, so you basically spend all eternity in a state of complete bliss.
The interpretation I suscribe to is thus: The reason we can get bored or sick of something in real life is because it is flawed in some fashion. Heaven is, in essence, union with God, who is perfect. You won't get bored in Heaven, because it is an experience of perfection. In order to grasp that concept, you can't picture perfection as some kind of Earthly paradise. It's total, absolute goodness. You won't get bored because it will never stop satisfying you.
Residents of Heaven are depicted as being perpetually happy. However, they would also surely have friends and family in Hell. Ergo, Heaven is a place where one can be perfectly happy while knowing that loved ones are in the midst of undergoing perpetual torment. That one gets more horrifying the more I think on it.
If there were others suffering severe punishment for eternity, God would be a liar.
According to the bible God will comfort them"He will wipe every tear from their eyes" Revelation 21:4.
It always sounded like a place where you would go to have your (or at least a lot of your) memory erased and lose your free will. Given that no one on Earth is perfect, yet many are still supposed to go to Heaven, and free will is a common justification for evil on Earth and the existence of Hell, one would have to assume there would be no free will in Heaven.
If that was the case Satan and the demons would not exist in the first place. Angels have free will too. Granted, humans that go to heaven will be made perfect and no longer have to deal with inherited sin, which will make their lives much easier.
in addition there will just be no reason for us humans to sin in heaven. think about it there will be no economy so there won't be poverty and since everyone gets whatever they want no reason to steal,deal drug, rape or kill people and all Chaotically Evil people would in hell at this point.Just don't see how sinning would be possible or why would anyone do it.
Just to round out the possibilities, however, the Cessation of Existence is also thoroughly horrible to contemplate: what does anything you do matter if someday you will no longer be around to appreciate any of the consequences of it? Why should anyone refuse to pursue all of his cruelest and most destructive desires if good and evil and everything in between all face the same ultimate reward? The majority of humans aren't Nietzsche, it's understandable they'd rather choose a shallow description ofeternity.
The very idea that humanity is somehow so monstrous that we need to have the concept of reward or punishment in some nebulous afterlife hanging over our heads to keep us in line paints a pretty gloomy picture of us in and of itself.
That is not really true. No one is perfect and the fact that humans need to have the concept of reward or punishment isn't really a bad thing nor does suggest that we are monsters for needing them. In fact a little positive/negative reinforcement can actually help motivate us humans to become better people. Just because someone needs a little motivate to be a good person doesn't mean they are bad.
For example, would most people still work at their job even thought they weren't getting paid? Probably not, but does that make them a monster who has to get paid in order to do something? No, itís just that some people would like to get some reward for what they're doing. whether it's money, a ďthank you,Ē or the smile on someone's face. Even people who donate blood a least get a cookie or some juice and a sticker. Just wanting a sign that shows that someone somewhere appreciates the good that you're doing doesn't make you a monster.
It's not about having a reward, it's about having justice.
Without acknowledgement, we'd be less sure that we're doing good Ė or ought to be; consider the stock character who happily and carelessly does "good" without caring whether anyone else thinks it so.
In the Bible, Jesus casts the demons out of a man who calls himself Legion, because there are many demons in his body, driving him insane. When the demons are cast out, they possess a herd of pigs and force them to drown themselves. This passage is disturbing enough on its own, and gets more disturbing when you remember there were an estimated two thousand pigs in that herd. Assuming (by a conservative estimate, yet!) there was just one demon for each pig, Legion had two thousand demons in his body. The townspeople were understandably terrified at the spectacle alone, not to mention the economic loss, and might have been more frightened still if they'd understood what caused it.
Well, the Jews consider pork to be unclean, so there may have been some kind of symbolism in the unclean spirits going into unclean animals.
Technically, pork isn't unclear, but impure, which is a very poor translation of a word that probably meant "near the ground" as well as "near the sky" as in "far from mankind", as in "near to God the most", since ground and sky are the most common symbolism of God, especially in the Bible. So, it's not unclean spirit possessing unclean animarls, but more like unclean spirits possessing the animal equivalent of a saint. The fact than two thousand demons managed to possess a single man but could only possess pigs one by one makes you think how much powerful they actually were... and this is just terryfying.
At the very beginning of The Old Testament, Adam and Eve are the first humans (if you don't believe Lilith existed). They had sexual intercourse and had children. Now think about this: If Adam, Eve, and their children are the only humans in existence, then how did later humans come to be? Logic dictates that the only available humans must have had intercourse with each other. The answer: Incest. Lots and lots of incest.
It doesn't stop with them. Supposedly, in the story of Noah and The Ark, Noah and his family were the only ones not wiped out by the flood. Here we go again...
Noah cursed his son Ham with the curse of Canaan for "seeing his father's nakedness" as Noah had fallen in drunken stupor in his tent. The fridge horror is, of course, that "seeing someone's nakedness" is a Hebrew euphemism for sexual intercourse... Ham had effectively raped his pig-drunken father in the tent.
This assumes incest was always a bad thing. If Adam and Eve, being the first humans, were considered by God to be "very good" (morally/genetically perfect?) as created, what is wrong with their having sexual relations? Assuming neither God nor anyone else had any moral qualms against it, their genes were perfect, and the Westermarck Effect didn't exist, one can produce no logical objection to the earliest generations having sex with their siblings, only an emotional reaction born of modern concerns.
Actually, that's not far from reality. Everyone outside of Africa has descended from one group of people who left Africa. Current estimates say that the group might have been as few as 150 people. Most of us come from one tribe
Actually, reading the Bible will show that the children of Adam and Eve had wives. It's entirely possible that pre-banishment God created more humans in the Garden of Eden. It's never directly stated that God created Adam and Eve, then left it there.
Many Abrahamic derived sources claim that Adam and Eve had three sons (Abel, Cain, and Seth) and something like 16 daughters. However, until Cain finds his wife after Abel's death, there was no mention that he had ever met them; their wives were, most likely, their sisters. That said, the statute of Jews not marrying their siblings was not put into effect much later.
Cain and Abel weren't jewish though. This was way before Jacob.
I learned in my sophomore year in (a single-gender Catholic) high school that you're not supposed to take the creation story literally. So that means God probably took millions of years to create the entirety of His creation (given the fact that Genesis was referring to "days" as God understood them to be, not the human-made invention of what we would consider to be "days". It also means that there were no actual literal "Adam" and "Eve". There were probably two small tribes of First People represented by "Adam" and "Eve", who were cast out of some idyllic Shangri-La ("Paradise") when sin entered the equation (it could've even been something as simple as greed, i.e. greed for more land). When you give consideration as to when Genesis was written, it would make sense that the extremely sexist writers of the pre-Christian era (since what is known as the "Old Testament" in Christianity is known as the "Torah" in Judaism, meaning Genesis is also a part of the Jewish Holy Book) would utilize a male and a female in this allegory and blame the female for the sin that drove the first tribes out of Paradise.
This basic gist of this interpretation (that the first few chapters of Genesis are not supposed to be read in the way American fundamentalist Evangelicals have ingrained in our social consciousness) has actually been on the rise in the last so-many decades. A truly "literal" reading of the text notices that Genesis (and the rest of the Bible) is completely silent as to who Cain's wife or Seth's wife were. And a truly "literal" reading of the text notices that the narration seems to assume the existence of other humans beyond just Adam and Eve and their now-only child Cain, despite not actually saying where they came from.
The idea that you could be tortured forever for not getting this one nitpicky detail correct or by not following a book full of contradictions. Meanwhile, your family and friends who are Christian would just smile, think you deserve to be tortured forever, and would apparently achieve perfect happiness in heaven despite someone they love being tormented for eternity due to the brainwashing of the deity who put you there with no regard to whether you were good or evil.
Many people (on this very page no less) seem be under the misconception that simply believing in Jesus is a get-into-heaven-free card, which is not true. One would still have to follow Christís teaching in order to be a true Christian. What I'm basically saying here is that when people say that "getting into heaven isn't a matter of good and evil," they are kind of wrong seeing how even though you're a Christian you'll still have to repent and change your ways in order to get into heaven. And as far as the bible is concern simply being ignorant of god (being unaware of his existence) isn't enough to be sent to hell (rejecting him flat out is whole other story). Another thing is that is strange is the fact that people keep talking about how the biblical laws contract yet can never give any real significant examples of this.
This depends entirely on what part of the bible you like to read. Some parts claim faith alone saves you, actions are irrelevant. Other parts claim the opposite. Oh, and then there the fact that it didn't matter to begin with- God has everyone that will be saved written in the book of life- since the beginning of time. Most people, he knowingly created to send to hell.
There are some sections of the bible that both supporting and rejecting Luther's doctrine of Sola Fide(the idea that faith is all you need). there at least a few passages that says both faith and action are necessary. which why it's important to read the whole bible and not just certain parts.
Of course, then there are the contradictions to that... Either way, saying that believing in Jesus alone won't save you is YMMV in the extreme, and is down to each believer and denomination themselves. There are no "true Christian" because the bible makes it impossible for you to be- you're doomed if you do, and doomed if you don't.
Contradictions to what? also if saying that believing in Jesus alone won't save you is YMMV in the extreme then saying that it's all you need is would also be YMMV in extreme seeing how there are passages that support and dismiss both ideas(as was mention before)so your best bet is to just do both have faith and show it through your actions. "you're doomed if you do, and doomed if you don't"? is doing both somehow not an option? Sorry can't really see what the issues here is?
The concept of predestination in the Calvinist denominations. It states that God will know His own, and has selected them to Heaven and nothing can change that selection. But that also implies that God has also pre-selected those who are bound to Hell, and there is nothing anyone can do to avoid that fate. So salvation is basically a grand lottery, and majority of the humankind is destined to Hell anyway. The purpose of life is to produce fuel in Hell.
If your fate is predetermined and nothing you can do will change it, then why not go on your merry way, raping, pillaging, murdering, etc?
Arguably, you don't know what your final fate is. Only God does. Of course, all this contention does is seal you off from having any excuse for your actions, making predestination functionally the same as having free will.
The whole idea of predestination is fairly new in Christianity. While the idea of Free will in Judaism and Christianity actually predates predestination and while many Christian believe hell is the default fate just as many don't. And even if it is that doesn't mean you're destined to go there. You can do something about it less you already assume you were going there and gave up before even trying to change anything. In addition, predestination does feature but not in the way people think. Instead of Predestination as in 'You will go to Heaven or Hell regardless of what you do' it is predestination in the sense that everyone was meant to go to Heaven, that was our destination, whether we get there or not is down to us with God's help.
In addition the fact God's knows his own and have their names written book of life is due to his omniscient. He can predict what his creation will do. That doesn't necessarily mean he designed anyone to go to hell. It is ultimately down to the individual.
No. There is nothing in New Testament which implies free will, and both Martin Luther and Jean Calvin strictly deny men had any free will on what comes on their salvation - salvation is solely from God (the doctrine of Monergism) and neither man's will nor volition nor his deeds have any influence on it. The God's omniscience together with His omnipotence imply that his wills what he knows and he knows what he wills - his prediction is also simultaneously his foreordination. Hence the doctrine of reprobation: God hates the whole humankind because of its sins and wills that everyone shall go to Hell by default. But due to His incomprehensible love, He has decided to save some specimens of Homo sapiens from eternal damnation, and those exceptions are predestined to Heaven. But the predestination is not because of one's faith nor because of one's deeds nor because of one's properties - it is sola gratia, only because of grace. On man's behalf, it is nothing short of lottery. Even Calvin said this is a hideous doctrine, but because of God's immeasurable majesty, the human reason must humbly bow in front of it.
Previous to Augustine there was no serious development in Christianity of a theory of predestination.The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. IX, page 192The Greek Apologists and Fathers...They know nothing of unconditional predestination; they teach free will.Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. X, page 231
So yeah the idea of free will did in fact came first. and the idea predestination came after the teachings of st.Augustine which is Word of Dante that came about in the 4th century.
There is nothing in The Bible which implies predestination, and anything Martin Luther or Jean Calvin said is Word of Dante. Furthermore, predestination conflicting with God's love is proof enough that predestination isn't true.
Many Christians believe that God decides what is good and evil, and by extension, what is love and hatred. Predestination and forcing someone to sin so you can torture them for glory doesn't contradict the idea of love if you yourself decide what love is.
No, it still kind of does very much so. there is no point to punishing someone for a crime you force them to commit. or rewarding for an act you force them to do. And creating someone just to force into sinning so they can suffer is not love by any definition.
Not by any human definition. The Bible says God does what he does for his pleasure and glory. Pouring out wrath would bring God glory, thus it would have a purpose, just as pouring out mercy. Also, the pouring out of wrath would be defined as justice within the Calvinist/Lutheran worldview, thus it would not contradict the idea of love. Remember, if God decides what is good and evil, he can do whatever brings him pleasure and glory and be good. Same goes for love.
But such concepts like eternal torture and predestination must be consistent with however God chooses to define love, and they aren't. And God cannot force someone sin; "sin" is defined as missing God's standards or going against his will, thus God can't force someone to go against his will, because such an action would be in harmony with his will; it's a paradox.
ALL Christians believe that the only way to get into heaven is through Jesus. That the one and ONLY way to get into heaven is by accepting Jesus into your life and following his teachings. What about the people who came before Jesus? Or the ones who've never even heard of him? What becomes of them? Poor Buddha!
Tradition states that those Jews pre-Jesus who were faithful to God were ascended at the Resurrection of Christ. Also, Catholic Orthodoxy states that good non-Christians go to Limbo, where there are merely sighs, not torments. Although, the dogma of Limbo was removed from Catholic teachings in the last two years or so.
Limbo was never a part of Catholic orthodoxy to begin with. While Paradise Lost was adapted by the papacy as Word Of God, the Divine Comedy, including Purgatorio(aka Limbo) was adapted as, well...
Nope, Purgatory is a Catholic doctrine way earlier than Dante.
Purgatory is different from Limbo. Purgatory is the canon (official doctrine) place where souls are purified before heaven. Everyone who will go to heaven spends time in Purgatory. It is believed that prayers of the living can shorten the length of time spent in Purgatory. Limbo was a theory of where the souls who couldn't come to heaven and didn't deserve hell went. Limbo is only one possibility and was never cannon.
In Romans 2, Paul writes about gentiles who were ignorant of the law but nonetheless were faithful to it through their actions. Many Christians believe this also applies to those ignorant of Christ, as in a person who does not intellectually know of Jesus, but nonetheless seeks God in his heart and seeks and does what is right will be shown mercy.
Actually; regarding to the first "ALL christians believe...", actually many do believe that non-Christians who die not believing in christ can STILL eventually make it to heaven. One poll even says that the number is over 60 percent; check it on washington.post. Many believe the ones about damnation are either parables or are about how Jesus died for the world.
Some Christians don't even believe they are going heaven at all, they hope to come back to live on the Earth for eternity.
If a human somehow 'sent himself" to heaven or hell, then we would be MORE POWERFUL THAN GOD!!!!!!!!!!
Exactly how would that make that individual more powerful than god?
Much of one's understanding of the above depends on how one interprets various parts of Scripture such as (particularly) Genesis and Revelation. How something should be interpreted depends on how it is written. History is history. Parable is parable. Vision is vision. Visions can be hard to understand, particularly on first glance. If, say, the apostle John saw the modern world in his vision, how on earth would he describe it? Most of what we have didn't even exist at the time in any way shape or form, and the future is only going to get weirder from his perspective.
The Talmud states in Eruvim 13b: Creation of Man was a good thing, but even better would have been if Man had not been created at all. What that implies, is up to everyone's imagination.
Greek Mythology: The premise behind the story of King Midas. A rare example of canonicalFridge Horror. It's like, "OK, everything you touch will turn to gold... but what happens when you try to eat?"
Here's some non-internal Fridge Horror: by turning everything he touches into gold, he is gradually devaluing the price of gold. Eventually, he could create so much gold as to make it worthless, so Midas' power would not only make him unable to eat if he survived that long, but he also would turn everything he touched into worthless baubles.
In Once Upon a Time, this is actually somewhat deconstructed; Midas has taken into account all the awful consequences of his power, so he wears heavy gloves and only turns things to gold as a serious reward for those who've helped him. And then he turns a sword to gold.
And clouds from his brain, according to some versions. You decide if the fact that such a being apparently had water vapor for brain lessens or increases the horror.
The premise here is a bit mistaken, in that you're combining contradictory cosmologies (Norse and modern). If the Norse concept of "the world" is only a fraction of the size that today's concept of "the world" is, then Ymir is only a fraction of the size you're thinking. Still pretty big (the surface area of Scandinavian lands), but not the size you're thinking (the full volume of the sphere we call Earth).
Sorry, but that doesn't fly. The Vikings delved deep into Russia, went to Turkey, visited Africa and North America(though by this time they were predominantly christian, not all of them were so)... and Scandinavians are known to have been involved in trade in the mediterranean since the early bronze age. Ymir is larger than Europe. You seriously underestimate how much the vikings traveled.
The cranium of Ymir's skull was made into the dome of the sky, which means that the circumference of the flat earth in Norse mythology is the circumference of Ymir's head alone! Presumably, Odin used the rest of his limbs and appendages to create the other worlds in the Norse cosmology. *Thats* how big Ymir is.
For one thing, many religions and people have their own definitions of who God is and what he does that do not entirely agree with the description above.
So, basically life is a "Saw" movie, only much larger in scope and more horrifying. Same goes for the gods of Judaism and Islam, by the way.
Most of you are probably familiar with the free will argument - that humans must have free will to do evil lest we be mindless drones or somesuch. Now, remember how in Revelation, God's supposed to come down to Earth and rule it forever and ever in a new Jerusalem? Houston, we have three problems:
Yahweh maintains peace forever by removing everyone's free will to sin, which negates the free will argument altogether or...
Yahweh leaves free will intact but removes the desire to sin, something he could have done a long time ago to spare untold billion from endless torture, or...
There's nothing to keep people from launching another rebellion against Yahweh. After endless years of existence doing the same thing over and over (that is, praising Yahweh), you might be one of the rebels.
Which leaves the question: How can a perfect, all-knowing being create imperfect beings/ world that can corrupt perfect beings?
He didn't. The first humans chose sinfulness as their nature, and just passed it on through genetics. Apparently Yahweh doesn't view a creation's abuse of free will and possibility of corruption as a stain on his perfection; if a perfect creation chooses to sin or corrupt itself into imperfection, it's the creation's problem, not Yahweh's. I suppose it all depends on your definition of "perfection". And considering that Yahweh thinks that "incorruptibility" and "free will" to be mutually exclusive, it also depends on which you consider to be the better virtue.
Which actually makes God the most sadistic creature in the whole world and makes the free will argument mute/paradoxical. If your father/grandfather/grand-to-the-nth-father did something bad and you are still getting punished for it by someone, how can that be fair towards YOU? And, how can you choose differently and not get punished, when the whole game was crooked from the beginning?
No, we can't choose to not sin or die, but that doesn't mean that we don't have free will in every other aspect of our life. And no, it isn't really fair at all, and the whole game is crooked, it's just how sin works. Which is why God sent Jesus, to fix the game, give the rest of humanity a fair chance to actually choose differently and escape the consequences of their ancestor's actions.
The second problem is accurate, but shows a lack of understanding; God chose not to reverse sin immediately to prove that humans need him, and wasn't necessarily obligated to fix our ancestors' mistakes. The third problem is part inaccurate, part legitimate Fridge Horror. On one hand, Christians don't believe they'll be doing the same thing over and over. On the other hand, according to the Millenialist interpretation of Revelation, some humans will join Satan and rebel against God after a thousand years of paradise. However, God would have no need to let inherited sin perpetuate itself a second time and would instead kill the rebels immediately; although that might relieve the unborn, it would make the Fridge Horror for the potential rebels arguably worse.
The real problem with choosing to sin or not, and with free will in general, according to the Judeo-Christian tradition is that if god really is all knowing then he also knows all your choices and decisions that you will ever make which implies that whatever you do is already preordained. The Fridge Horror comes when you realize that this means that you can't choose to sin or not, you will sin and go to hell because God decided it to be so, not even your choice of believing or not believing in god is yours. Of course this hinges on your interpretation of what exactly all knowing means and if god actually charts your fate, but given that most Christian traditions believe in God's great plan... Crooked game indeed.
This is not a problem at all. This so-called "problem" arises from people confusing "knowledge" with "causation". If a weatherman was gifted with the ability of 100% accurate weather prediction, even if he knew what the weather would be, he would not actually be causing or deciding the weather. "Knowing" is not the same as "causing" or "choosing". Foreknowledge and predestination are NOT even remotely the same thing. Not to mention that God's omniscience is a power, not a state of being. Even though he can know everything doesn't mean he actually chooses to; there are some parts of The Bible where God states or implies he did not know what the outcome would be.
Your metaphor isn't totally correct. If the weatherman knew that tomorrow will rain, and he had the ability to stop the rain, but he doesn't, then he's deciding that tomorrow will rain. God is omnipotent, so, if He knows that someone is going to sin, he could stop it but He chooses to let the sinner sin anyway. It could be that God has already decided not to mess with humanity's free will under any circumstances, by unknown reasons.
Not quite. If the weatherman knew that tomorrow will rain, and he had the ability to stop the rain, but he doesn't, then he's NOT deciding that tomorrow will rain, he's letting it rain tomorrow. Letting something happen and deciding that something will happen are not the same thing.
Omnipotence and omniscience together mean that one's will is the same as his intention. Letting something happen (passive will) and deciding something happening (active will) are basically the same thing: they are willing something happen. In this concept (omnipotence and omniscience premises) the foreknowledge and predestination indeed are one and the same.
Letting something happen and intending something to happen are NOT the same thing either. God's intention is for people to choose against sin of their own free will. If a person has a sinful nature, God's only choices are to either let them sin or make them not sin by infringing on their free will. Neither choice represents God's actual intention. Will and intention are NOT the same thing in the case of a Morton's Fork. God's intention is for people to choose against sin of their own free will. It's not that God can't stop us from sinning, it's that if he does he'll be taking our freedom to choose and that is not what he wants.
The Morton's Fork argument works depending on how you define omnipotence. In the most literal sense of the word, it would not work, as God would have no limitations, and the difference between intent and will would be moot. If we assume a somewhat less literal definition, then God would not be powerful enough to grant free will and make sure people used it properly.
Your argument still doesn't make any sense. As mentioned before (wow still not getting the point) if God made sure people used it properly then that wouldn't really be free will would it? Since God would technically be controlling everyone's actions and by the very definition of free will it would a contradiction. It would be like saying that because God can't create a being more powerful than himself then God is not all powerful. Because that is what you're basically saying, since God can't create free will that he can control then he is not all powerful. Which doesn't makes sense because free will by its' very definition should not be controllable otherwise its stops being free will. So you may not be seeing this (perhaps because your statements maybe making perfect sense to you) but you basically have been posting paragraphs after paragraphs of the kind of Insane Troll Logic as mentioned above.
And exactly how are you defining omnipotence? Because in order for your argument to make sense, you have would have to define an omnipotent being as one who can do anything, and that God would be able to somehow be able to merge the concepts of "free will" and "fate/control" together (which if possible would be beyond the human mind to grasp, since we live in a world where they are opposites). That is not a literal interpretation, that is beyond literal. That is not who God is; as I stated earlier, there are things that God cannot or will not do. Also, literal omnipotence mostly refers to his physical power; however, you are speaking of the non-physical concepts. Even considering that God can do anything, he may still for limit himself to certain methods. For instance, God does plan to have all humans use free will properly, but he plans to do so by teaching humans how to do so and destroy all those who refuse to use it properly despite knowing how; not by somehow "controlling free will". Also, according to your interpretation of omnipotence, God would not have needed to provide Jesus as a sacrifice to save humanity.
To put simply the problem isn't with God the problem is what you want/expect God to do doesn't make any sense.Free will that's being control isn't free will.
I'm not sure where the disagreement is, other than that you don't seem to understand that omnipotence seems to mean different things to different people. Without defining it first, you'll end up talking past each other. I have seen people literally say that God can create a rock too heavy to lift and then lift it, because he's God and can violate logic. I've seen people put various limitations on God to reconcile Theodicy. I simply stated how this works under both definitions. I don't actually expect /anything/ from God.
But in this case God's Limitation isn't really a Physical limitation. A limitation brought on by one's own want and desire shouldn't really count as one. choosing not to do something and not being able to do something are two different things.
The limitation is that he would have to /make/ a choice. If he has to make one, that is a limitation. If someone is operating under the assumption that God can create a rock so heavy he can't lift it, lift it, and not have a contradiction (and there are people who believe this, even if you aren't one of them), then the point would be moot. If you don't make that assumption (and many people don't), then your point stands. That's all I'm trying to say. I'm literally saying that if you make the assumptions you are making, you are 100% right. If not, you are not. Not everyone makes those assumptions, whether you agree with them or not.
Exactly how is having to make a choice a limitation?
If any entity has omniscience, then no entities have free will, because the guy who knows everything already knows what everyone will do, for every decision they will ever make or action they will ever take. Unless of course we're talking about some sort of namby-pamby omniscience that doesn't include future events, but the bible includes predictions about future events that depend on human behavior and decisions (like periods of war and peace), so we can be absolutely certain that if the bible is at all true, there is no free will. Period. Attempts to justify God's behavior using human free will (or Adamic free will, or Luciferian free will) do not work.
You are confusing omniscience/foreknowledge with predetermination. Just because someone knows something is going to happen doesn't mean that they actually made it happen. Omniscience is simply knowing what decision someone will make does not impact their free will. What impacts free will is actually manipulating decisions/events, which is predetermination. God has done this, but only on certain occasions. Predetermination is an extension of his omnipotence, not his omniscience.
Satan/Lucifer/Samael is only the prince of darkness. Who does that leave to be the king?
This is not at all a problem, since princedom exists even nowadays, so it's not strange to think The Devil is a prince but has no king above him and his reign is a princedom. However, as many anti-clericals and atheists put it, if God is all-powerful, why does he let his enemy go around and mess with his creation? Masochism? Paradox? Or something worst...?
Of course that's basically saying God is the King of evil for creating free will.
But if you take into account certain parts of the Gospel of John, then Yahweh could actually Yaldabaoth, the Demiurge. A false god, created by the Aeon Sophia. She immediately acknowledged her mistake, decrying him as an abomination. It is implied that Yaldabaoth is blind to his own flawed nature, believing himself to be absolute and all-powerful because said flaws cripple his thinking. Yaldabaoth went on to create us. It goes without saying that there is plenty of fridge horror right there.
What part of the Gospel of John is that? I have read the Gospel of John, and I don't remember anything like that being in it.
All of these examples demonstrate the Tropes Are Not Bad. It is common on the Internet to promote one's own beliefs by pointing out the Fridge Horror of alternative beliefs, and how bad it would be if one's belief were not true. However, as the plethora of Fridge Horror for any given belief demonstrates, just because something would be terrible if it were true does not prevent it from being true.