• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does God Have Free Will?

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
@rusra02 I wanted to direct this to you (and other christians). I read your posts and it looks like you didnt answer the question. (Cant think of another way tonphrase it without sounding rude. Sorry)
My tutor informed me that God could not forgive any debt without blood sacrifice, because He has perfect honor, and perfect honor cannot abide sin without repayment

Rusra

If I asked you forgiveness, I would not need a blood sacrifice. If you accept it, than our debts would be clear.

However, why doesnt god do the same? Jews and Muslims asks for god's forgiveness and in their faith, he says he does and their debts clear.

Since it is god, why does it need to be blood sacrifice?

What about god in christianity makes asking for forgiveness not counted without the blood of christ?

What is the nature of blood and why is " it " (not christ) important?
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
There was this one guy who told his wife, "I love you so much! You're free to leave of your own accord, but I'll slowly burn you to death and then bury you in an unmarked grave if you do. It's your free will choice". What do you think of this man? Inhuman, abusive, disturbed, dangerous? Yes, I agree. That's not love at all!
Would you think it just on God's part to allow such men to continue their abuse forever? Do you think it just and fair that Jehovah permit wickedness indefinitely? Men and women have filled the earth with violence and murder, immorality, theft, and fraud. I think Jehovah has shown extraordinary restraint and patience. "What, then, if God had the will to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known, and he tolerated with much patience vessels of wrath made fit for destruction? And if this was done to make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory, namely, us, whom he called not only from among Jews but also from among nations, what of it?"(Romans 9:22-24)
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Well, I think I follow, but I see no reason why this would need to be the case. "Accepting a ransom" is usually something the kidnapper does, not the kidnapped. What you're saying is that the kidnapped person needs to agree to be let free, or else their liberator should simply let the kidnapper have them in order to satisfy their sense of justice. But that is unfair, because those who are captive to sin, like the kidnapped child, are quite likely to be seduced or coerced into rejecting the help of their liberator. We do not usually blame this on the child.
I believe Jehovah would never force a person to accept salvation. He lovingly invites "anyone who wishes [to] take life’s water free." (Revelation 22:17) Jehovah does not owe us anything. IMO, it is as Jesus said; "Now this is the basis for judgment: that the light has come into the world, but men have loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked." (John 3:19) A child raised in a loving household may choose to reject his kind parents and leave the family, because the child is unwilling to abide by the house rules. The fault is theirs and theirs alone, IMO.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Would you think it just on God's part to allow such men to continue their abuse forever? Do you think it just and fair that Jehovah permit wickedness indefinitely? Men and women have filled the earth with violence and murder, immorality, theft, and fraud. I think Jehovah has shown extraordinary restraint and patience. "What, then, if God had the will to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known, and he tolerated with much patience vessels of wrath made fit for destruction? And if this was done to make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory, namely, us, whom he called not only from among Jews but also from among nations, what of it?"(Romans 9:22-24)
But the man in my story was only following the example of God using your quote to justify himself:

As John 3:16 declares: "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life." The benefits of Christ's ransom sacrifice are open to all. However, God will not force us to accept the ransom and live according to God's will for us. Those who reject God's loving provision for everlasting life are free to do so. " The one who exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life; the one who disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him." (John 3:36)
Did he have a bad interpretation of the verses, citing what you interpreted from them which are bolded above, where he thought it meant literally that love from his wife should be coerced through a terrorist threat? He was only following what he believed was how love should act based on the application of the verse where God threatens burning and punishment for rejecting him. Was he misreading it?

How does it not apply to him in his relationship with his wife if it does for God with humanity in the way you told us it means? He gave his wife the freewill choice to reject his love too with the same type of threat attached to it, the same as you said about God that "Those who reject [his] loving provision [...] are free to do so". You consider it abusive and unloving for the man, but not for God? When God does it, it's love. When the abusive husband does it he merits the wrath of God.

Can you can understand the poor man's confusion, being told to act like God on the one hand, then told he will be punished for it on the other? He was only reading and interpreting the verses you cited the same way you are in his saying to his wife, "you are free to reject my love, but I will burn you to death and bury you in an unmarked grave, forgotten forever by anyone who ever loved you". How would you correct this man's misunderstanding and set him on the right path?
 
Last edited:

First Baseman

Retired athlete
I was recently in discussion with a nice Christian gentleman who assured me that God required blood payment for sin. I asked whether God could simply choose to forgive the debt. The God of Scripture, after all, demanded that we forgive each other our debts. My tutor informed me that God could not forgive any debt without blood sacrifice, because He has perfect honor, and perfect honor cannot abide sin without repayment.

Does God's perfection require him or her to act in certain ways? If so does this mean that God's will is not free? It seems to me that a person with free will could indeed forgive their neighbor of any debt, provided they desired to do so.

God is holy because He chooses to be. It is my belief that sin causes death. It is because God is holy that He lives forever without end.
 

Politesse

Amor Vincit Omnia
It almost sounds as though you are suggesting than man has ultimate authority over God. Like, God wants everyone to be saved, but we get to make the ultimate call. Even if God surrendered his authority over our souls voluntarily, that's still us, not God, deciding what to do with our souls. We are literally ordering God around about something rather important. We're in charge of the universe. A very interesting theology.
 
Last edited:

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
I was recently in discussion with a nice Christian gentleman who assured me that God required blood payment for sin. I asked whether God could simply choose to forgive the debt. The God of Scripture, after all, demanded that we forgive each other our debts. My tutor informed me that God could not forgive any debt without blood sacrifice, because He has perfect honor, and perfect honor cannot abide sin without repayment.

Does God's perfection require him or her to act in certain ways? If so does this mean that God's will is not free? It seems to me that a person with free will could indeed forgive their neighbor of any debt, provided they desired to do so.

The God created by the Christian Gentleman's argument is subjected to the will of the Law and not the other way around. That God would not be omnipotent, and therefore something far less than the Free-wheeling creator of the Universe...

However, the classic question remains "Can God build a stone so heavy that he can't lift it?"

Either answer you give provides a whole host of logical potholes.
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I don't believe God sends people to hell. The Bible hell is simply the grave. Regarding God, Acts 17:26-28 declares; "And he made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and he decreed the appointed times and the set limits of where men would dwell, so that they would seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us. For by him we have life and move and exist." So Jehovah expects us to make effort to draw near him. Regarding those in the past who did know God, verses 30,31 state: "God has overlooked the times of such ignorance; but now he is declaring to all people everywhere that they should repent. Because he has set a day on which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and he has provided a guarantee to all men by resurrecting him from the dead.” Ignorance of God's purposes is no excuse, and especially is willful ignorance not excusable.
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
@rusra02 I wanted to direct this to you (and other christians). I read your posts and it looks like you didnt answer the question. (Cant think of another way tonphrase it without sounding rude. Sorry)


Rusra

If I asked you forgiveness, I would not need a blood sacrifice. If you accept it, than our debts would be clear.

However, why doesnt god do the same? Jews and Muslims asks for god's forgiveness and in their faith, he says he does and their debts clear.

Since it is god, why does it need to be blood sacrifice?

What about god in christianity makes asking for forgiveness not counted without the blood of christ?

What is the nature of blood and why is " it " (not christ) important?
The Bible teaches that the penalty or "wages" of sin is death. (Romans 6:23) God's perfect justice requires this penalty for sin. How could God forgive sin while upholding his own standards of justice? The first man Adam sold himself and all his children into slavery to sin and death. Only a perfect life, equivalent to Adam, could balance the scales of justice, and permit forgiveness of sins, IMO. Matthew 20:28 explains; "the Son of man came...to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many." The Bible explains at Leviticus 17:11; "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it." Thus, I believe Jesus blood shed in a sacrifice lays the legal basis for God to forgive us our sins and give us everlasting life. God's mercy is shown along with his righteousness and justice by providing the ransom.
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
God does not torment people in hellfire. As the Creator and Sovereign, I believe Jehovah has the right to require that his creatures obey him. The sad results of disobeying God are clearly evident in the world we live in today. That is far different than a husband threatening to harm his wife if she chooses to leave him. He did not create his wife nor does he have the right to harm her.
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It almost sounds as though you are suggesting than man has ultimate authority over God. Like, God wants everyone to be saved, but we get to make the ultimate call. Even if God surrendered his authority over our souls voluntarily, that's still us, not God, deciding what to do with our souls. We are literally ordering God around about something rather important. We're in charge of the universe. A very interesting theology.
I believe we are in charge of our free will, not the universe. As Sovereign Ruler, Jehovah allows us to decide whether we will serve him or not. As Deuteronomy 30:19 explains; "I take the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you today that I have put life and death before you, the blessing and the curse; and you must choose life so that you may live, you and your descendants." Whatever we choose, God has the final say as to whether we will live forever or not. (John 3:36)
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
The Bible teaches that the penalty or "wages" of sin is death. (Romans 6:23) God's perfect justice requires this penalty for sin. How could God forgive sin while upholding his own standards of justice? The first man Adam sold himself and all his children into slavery to sin and death. Only a perfect life, equivalent to Adam, could balance the scales of justice, and permit forgiveness of sins, IMO. Matthew 20:28 explains; "the Son of man came...to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many." The Bible explains at Leviticus 17:11; "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it." Thus, I believe Jesus blood shed in a sacrifice lays the legal basis for God to forgive us our sins and give us everlasting life. God's mercy is shown along with his righteousness and justice by providing the ransom.

Thank you. I understand that. A lot of questions I ask are hypotheticals or examples because I know Christianity very well when it comes to what sacrifice means etc. Actually develing into the meaning or cruz of the text of why and how blood is important is a greater key to understand Christ than knowing when, where, and how he died on the cross (unless people dont know that)...

Anyway...

The Bible teaches that the penalty or "wages" of sin is death. (Romans 6:23) God's perfect justice requires this penalty for sin. How could God forgive sin while upholding his own standards of justice? The first man Adam sold himself and all his children into slavery to sin and death. Only a perfect life, equivalent to Adam, could balance the scales of justice, and permit forgiveness of sins, IMO. Matthew 20:28 explains; "the Son of man came...to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many."

I understand this. My question is (example) if a Jew and a Muslim does receive forgivness from (edit sorry) god Christ by asking (just as other religions of Abraham) and they do not require blood sacrifice, why would Christianity be the only religion (I know of) that would ask for such a sacrifice?

Yes, the Bible says god needs a ransom it doesnt talk about then nature of the ransom: Blood
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it."

If the nature of blood is life, and because we all have blood, we have life, what makes Jesus' blood more important than yours or mine?

Regardess of his purpose and who sent him

What about his blood and not mine makes an atoning sacrifice

and more so, how does it atone? (and how is atoning with blood more powerful than saying "Im sorry?)

(You know, how you use soap and water to wash clothes. Direct contact to fit germs, type of thing) How does physical blood atone for spiritual sin? (Oil and water?)
 
Last edited:

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
God does not torment people in hellfire. As the Creator and Sovereign, I believe Jehovah has the right to require that his creatures obey him. The sad results of disobeying God are clearly evident in the world we live in today. That is far different than a husband threatening to harm his wife if she chooses to leave him. He did not create his wife nor does he have the right to harm her.

Actually, those two scenarios have a lot to do with each other in context. "the sad results of disobeying god" compared to "if his wife doesnt obey him he will hit her (the consequences)"...

...have the same context. They both say that if you dont do what the authority tells you to do in one way or another (indirect former or direct latter), there will be consequences or sad results because of it.

It is both forunately and unfortunately that believers (generalizing on purpose) cannot see this, deny it, or cant. Its, well, true. The god of abraham from the mouths of his followers are set up as an authority not a friend. As a husband in many cultures are over their wives and so forth.

If believers say that god has the right to require obedience, where is the love in that requirement?

Is it love, as in unconditional where anyone person can recieve that (Christ is not higher in this case but equal) or is it a love based on duty to ones Spouse? (Which this type of love, like husband hits wife sometimes can be from the marrital point of view already but societal view unhealthy).

:shrug:
 

First Baseman

Retired athlete
Actually, those two scenarios have a lot to do with each other in context. "the sad results of disobeying god" compared to "if his wife doesnt obey him he will hit her (the consequences)"...

...have the same context. They both say that if you dont do what the authority tells you to do in one way or another (indirect former or direct latter), there will be consequences or sad results because of it.

It is both forunately and unfortunately that believers (generalizing on purpose) cannot see this, deny it, or cant. Its, well, true. The god of abraham from the mouths of his followers are set up as an authority not a friend. As a husband in many cultures are over their wives and so forth.

If believers say that god has the right to require obedience, where is the love in that requirement?

Is it love, as in unconditional where anyone person can recieve that (Christ is not higher in this case but equal) or is it a love based on duty to ones Spouse? (Which this type of love, like husband hits wife sometimes can be from the marrital point of view already but societal view unhealthy).

:shrug:

I sometimes wonder about your ability to open up your mind enough to soak in what somebody just said. You either understood and twisted everything around or you didn't understand and just totally blew it.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
If you ask for clarification and ask if I understood what I said to someone else not you, then I can rephrase what I said so you understand it. That, and please read Intentions behind Posts below. I constantly rephrase so I can understand it not to put words in other peoples mouths.

Since I didnt address you, please ask for clarification rather than insult me.

I sometimes wonder about your ability to open up your mind enough to soak in what somebody just said. You either understood and twisted everything around or you didn't understand and just totally blew it.

God does not torment people in hellfire. As the Creator and Sovereign, I believe Jehovah has the right to require that his creatures obey him. The sad results of disobeying God are clearly evident in the world we live in today. That is far different than a husband threatening to harm his wife if she chooses to leave him. He did not create his wife nor does he have the right to harm her.

Firstbase, in my opinion, the two scenarios are the same in context. There isnt anthing spiritual about it.

Scripture says that god is an authority. In mainstream Christianity, god is scene as an authority. In the Church, I experienced the same thing.

Nothing bad in and of itself. I just dont care for authority. Period.

If you run away from your parent, that parent will still love you but the consequence of running away is what Rusra (from how I read it) is looking at. The world is up in a mess because people disobey god.

(My words) People disobey god and it results in a mess because god is an authority. I understand that and I disagree.

Its the same as her scenario as the husband hiting the wife. There is no context here. You can say he is beating her, I can see it as looking at some countries who believe in hiting their wife (and children) when the did something wrong. In another context, it is alright. Natual, no. Alright, yes.

So they are similar in that god is the authority, husband is the authorty, and if you go away from god or wife from husband, there are consequences from or results of disobeying god or husband.

Thats it.

Has nothing to do with hellfire, eternal punishment, or anything. Thats between her and someone else. Im just comparing the two scenarios with each other based on their authority and how both punishes the otehr (indirect or direct) based on the actions o their followers or mate.

Nothing more. Dont take it personal. Ask for clarfication before accusations.

Read my posts**
 

Neo Deist

Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
I was recently in discussion with a nice Christian gentleman who assured me that God required blood payment for sin. I asked whether God could simply choose to forgive the debt. The God of Scripture, after all, demanded that we forgive each other our debts. My tutor informed me that God could not forgive any debt without blood sacrifice, because He has perfect honor, and perfect honor cannot abide sin without repayment.

Does God's perfection require him or her to act in certain ways? If so does this mean that God's will is not free? It seems to me that a person with free will could indeed forgive their neighbor of any debt, provided they desired to do so.

You would have to ask God if It had free will.

Anything else is merely human drivel.
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
What about his blood and not mine makes an atoning sacrifice

and more so, how does it atone? (and how is atoning with blood more powerful than saying "Im sorry?)

(You know, how you use soap and water to wash clothes. Direct contact to fit germs, type of thing) How does physical blood atone for spiritual sin? (Oil and water?)

The Bible says at Psalm 46:6-9; "Those who are trusting in their wealth and who boast about their great riches, None of them can ever redeem a brother or give to God a ransom for him, (The ransom price for their life is so precious that it is always beyond their reach); That he should live forever and not see the pit." The ransom price needed to correspond to what was lost; the perfect, sinless human life that Adam forfeited by his rebellion. I believe no sinful and imperfect human could pay this price. By sending his Son to be born a perfect man, Jehovah provided what is needed. 1 Timothy 2:5,6 explains: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all." Corresponding to what? IMO, to the first man Adam before he sinned. Thus the Bible calls Jesus "the last Adam." (1 Corinthians 15:45) Jesus human life given in sacrifice provided the ransom required.
 

First Baseman

Retired athlete
If you ask for clarification and ask if I understood what I said to someone else not you, then I can rephrase what I said so you understand it. That, and please read Intentions behind Posts below. I constantly rephrase so I can understand it not to put words in other peoples mouths.

Since I didnt address you, please ask for clarification rather than insult me.





Firstbase, in my opinion, the two scenarios are the same in context. There isnt anthing spiritual about it.

Scripture says that god is an authority. In mainstream Christianity, god is scene as an authority. In the Church, I experienced the same thing.

Nothing bad in and of itself. I just dont care for authority. Period.

If you run away from your parent, that parent will still love you but the consequence of running away is what Rusra (from how I read it) is looking at. The world is up in a mess because people disobey god.

(My words) People disobey god and it results in a mess because god is an authority. I understand that and I disagree.

Its the same as her scenario as the husband hiting the wife. There is no context here. You can say he is beating her, I can see it as looking at some countries who believe in hiting their wife (and children) when the did something wrong. In another context, it is alright. Natual, no. Alright, yes.

So they are similar in that god is the authority, husband is the authorty, and if you go away from god or wife from husband, there are consequences from or results of disobeying god or husband.

Thats it.

Has nothing to do with hellfire, eternal punishment, or anything. Thats between her and someone else. Im just comparing the two scenarios with each other based on their authority and how both punishes the otehr (indirect or direct) based on the actions o their followers or mate.

Nothing more. Dont take it personal. Ask for clarfication before accusations.

Read my posts**

I would repeat my last post but I do not wish to sound redundant and boring.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I would repeat my last post but I do not wish to sound redundant and boring.

If you dont want to contribute in a productive reply and understand where I come from without acusation, why reply?

I mean, Im sure you havent read my intentions; and, that does not excuse I am a person, should be respected, and talked with fairly. No sarcasm. No ignoring my post.

A Catholic should display unconditional love. I have it. Many Caholics have it. Thats one purpose of Christ is to sacrifice your ego (your: general people), and listen. Missionaries do it. Priest do it.

A priest told me when I asked why couldnt I be a priest. At the time, I always wanted to. Its very different when you consecrate the Eucharist versus giving it out. Its also different when you obsolve people rather than only listening and praying for them.

He explained why, then he said ALL Catholics are lay priest (forgot the term). All Catholics are called to give ALL people unconditional love, understanding, and prayers.

RF is very misleading. I read your FULL post. Please read mine. No need to repeat. Just respect my opinions in unconditional love.

Thank you for reading this.
 

First Baseman

Retired athlete
If you dont want to contribute in a productive reply and understand where I come from without acusation, why reply?

I mean, Im sure you havent read my intentions; and, that does not excuse I am a person, should be respected, and talked with fairly. No sarcasm. No ignoring my post.

A Catholic should display unconditional love. I have it. Many Caholics have it. Thats one purpose of Christ is to sacrifice your ego (your: general people), and listen. Missionaries do it. Priest do it.

A priest told me when I asked why couldnt I be a priest. At the time, I always wanted to. Its very different when you consecrate the Eucharist versus giving it out. Its also different when you obsolve people rather than only listening and praying for them.

He explained why, then he said ALL Catholics are lay priest (forgot the term). All Catholics are called to give ALL people unconditional love, understanding, and prayers.

RF is very misleading. I read your FULL post. Please read mine. No need to repeat. Just respect my opinions in unconditional love.

Thank you for reading this.

tl;dr :D
 
Top