Can God have free will?

[amortalman]

Christians claim that their God created mankind with free will and that God, himself, has free will. But how can that be? If God knows everything, as they claim, he knows his future decisions. Therefore, he is bound by those decisions and is not free to change them.

Before God supposedly brought on a great flood to destroy wicked humanity and wicked animals it is written: "The Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and he was grieved in his heart." (Gen.6:6 NASB). We know what happened next. And the reason comes from the Lord himself, "...for I am sorry that I have made them." (Gen.6:7 NASB). Why would an omniscient God create living beings that he would later regret and have to blot out?



Topic for debate: Is the Christian God omniscient? If he is, how can he also have free will?

[marco]

I think good and decent people don’t lie.

But it may be that some atheists are really righteous. I just don’t see any good and honest reason for them to claim God doesn’t exist.

Presumably there are many things that others can do that you cannot 1213 - I am only guessing, of course. Because you cannot see why, does not mean there are no good reasons why. There is nothing whatsoever to stop an atheist from being a good person; it would be insulting to say otherwise. Because they are honest with themselves they admit that they cannot see any reason for believing in God, or in particular, in Yahweh. Dishonesty would be accepting a God in whom they had no belief.

[1213]

… You would think that God if there was one, would be able to leave us a book that wasn't so confusing, especially when it comes to what is required to avoid hell and live in paradise forever.

It is not books fault, if people read only few lines that they like and reject the rest. I don’t think Bible is confusing. Confusion comes when people make own interpretations and ignore many things Bible is telling.

The point I'm making is that the odds of anyone becoming a Christian who is born Hindu, Muslim, Buddist, et al are pretty slim. We generally follow the beliefs of our parents, friends, and the predominant religion of our region.

It is then weird why so many become atheists, if people just follow their parents.

And there is zero evidence that there is some super wizard residing in the cosmos letting his former chief of staff run amok on this planet creating havoc.

I don’t think anyone here tries to make people to believe in “super wizard�. And I think it is dishonest to say we don’t have any evidence. Bible and this world are evidence. They are apparently just not enough for you to believe.

By what the Bible tells, God's order was death by stoning for a man picking up sticks on Saturday.

Person who did so, showed that he doesn’t have wisdom of the just, and is not righteous.

[amortalman]

… You would think that God if there was one, would be able to leave us a book that wasn't so confusing, especially when it comes to what is required to avoid hell and live in paradise forever.

It is not books fault, if people read only few lines that they like and reject the rest.

Well, that is a problem, isn't it? But the fact is, the more Bible you read and study the more confusing it becomes. The Bible only makes sense to those who see it as a collection of ancient myths and fables designed to explain what only science can explain.

I don’t think Bible is confusing. Confusion comes when people make own interpretations and ignore many things Bible is telling.

Do you realize that your particular beliefs arise from your own interpretations? Every Judeo-Christian sect and denomination attempts to explain the true meaning of Biblical texts. The Bible is a complex set of books written over a span of some 1500 years by many different authors. Is it any wonder that educated and sincere Biblical scholars come away with different explanations of the Bible?

The point I'm making is that the odds of anyone becoming a Christian who is born Hindu, Muslim, Buddist, et al are pretty slim. We generally follow the beliefs of our parents, friends, and the predominant religion of our region.

It is then weird why so many become atheists, if people just follow their parents.

Not weird at all. Not all atheists come from Christian homes, especially in countries like China, Sweden, the Czech Republic, and the UK, some of the most atheistic and non-religious countries in the world. In the deep south of the USA, you won't find a lot of atheists. what you will find are Christian churches on every corner. Case closed.

And there is zero evidence that there is some super wizard residing in the cosmos letting his former chief of staff run amok on this planet creating havoc.

I don’t think anyone here tries to make people to believe in “super wizard�. And I think it is dishonest to say we don’t have any evidence. Bible and this world are evidence. They are apparently just not enough for you to believe.

The Bible is zero evidence for a God. But there is plenty of evidence that it wasn't authored a holy, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and benevolent God. Do you mean the existence of the world is evidence? If you can prove it was created by God I'll accept that, but you can't. Science's explanation of how the earth came into existence is far more believable than an invisible super wizard who spoke and it happened.

By what the Bible tells, God's order was death by stoning for a man picking up sticks on Saturday.

Person who did so, showed that he doesn’t have wisdom of the just, and is not righteous.

Unbelievable!

[1213]

Well, that is a problem, isn't it? But the fact is, the more Bible you read and study the more confusing it becomes.

That is not true. The more I have read, the clearer it has become.

Do you realize that your particular beliefs arise from your own interpretations?

I try to avoid interpretations and read the text as it is written. I think one big problem is that people make own interpretations and twist what the Bible tells. It leads to confusion.

The Bible is zero evidence for a God. But there is plenty of evidence that it wasn't authored a holy, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and benevolent God. Do you mean the existence of the world is evidence?

Bible tells, God created earth. So, the existence of earth is one evidence of that God may have created. Obviously, person who doesn’t want to believe in God, but to some invisible cosmic super power that formed all, it is not enough evidence. But still, even if the evidence is not enough, it is evidence.

If you can prove it was created by God I'll accept that, but you can't. Science's explanation of how the earth came into existence is far more believable than an invisible super wizard who spoke and it happened.

Why it is more believable to you? Because of some person with fancy title says so?

[amortalman]

Well, that is a problem, isn't it? But the fact is, the more Bible you read and study the more confusing it becomes.

That is not true. The more I have read, the clearer it has become.

That's because you refuse to entertain a more reasonable alternative view. For 15 years as a Christian, I would not allow myself to read or listen to anything that challenged my belief system. It wasn't until I started to think for myself and question what I was reading that I started reading what Bible critics wrote. And what they wrote made sense to me. The pieces came together.

Do you realize that your particular beliefs arise from your own interpretations?

I try to avoid interpretations and read the text as it is written. I think one big problem is that people make own interpretations and twist what the Bible tells. It leads to confusion.

You can't possibly read anything without a personal interpretation unless you are brain dead. we read we form opinions and beliefs about what we have read. That is all interpretation is.

The Bible is zero evidence for a God. But there is plenty of evidence that it wasn't authored a holy, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and benevolent God. Do you mean the existence of the world is evidence?

But still, even if the evidence is not enough, it is evidence.

So you are basing your beliefs on not enough evidence. I can believe that.

If you can prove it was created by God I'll accept that, but you can't. Science's explanation of how the earth came into existence is far more believable than an invisible super wizard who spoke and it happened.

Why it is more believable to you? Because of some person with fancy title says so?

There is usually a very good reason for the fancy titles. It means that the person is highly educated, has earned the respect of his peers, and excelled in his area of expertise. Would you rather a bum on skid row perform an appendectomy on you or someone with a fancy title like Chief Surgeon of Harvard Medical School? But in the case of science, there are far more people with fancy titles who have examined and studied the cosmos and come to the conclusion that our planet was created from star material about 4.5 billion years ago and that Homo Sapiens have been around hundreds a couple hundred thousand years instead of 6 to 10 thousand years the Bible claims.

[FWI]

[Replying to amortalman]

Sounds like an armchair definition of free will, and not a very good one I'm afraid. Elsewhere in this thread, I believe I gave a definition that I feel is more precise which is, "The capacity of a conscious mind to make decisions and choices without any external constraints or coercion."

I don't read every post that's included on this forum, nor do I always read every post to a thread. Yet, you asked a religious question, but conveniently ignore the religious implications to that question…Instead, you use a definition, which is general, secular and of no value to the question. So, it seems that your approach is related to theorizing without the benefit of practical experience or what is known as an armchair definition. However, the bible clearly shows that free-will is related to choosing between: what is good and what isn't. Hence, your definition of free-will is unrelated to your question and cannot be seriously considered.

Evidently, he desires a lot of blood. Read the Biblical history of Israel.

I have read the history of ancient Israel, but my understandings (to the history) seems to go in a different direction that yours. But, the statement: "desires for blood" is so vague that I can only conclude that this remark is meant to be sarcastic. If it was related to sacrifices, the truth is, very little blood (from each animal) was used in the religious rituals and since about 70 A.D. there has been practically none. If, it was related to "wars," then this also is limited in scope. The few instances that occurred were related to defensive actions and/or retribution for crimes previously committed. The horrors that the nations around Israel were committing far exceeded those of the Israelites. So, maybe you need to reread the stories from an unbiased attitude.

No wrong decisions? Not according to Genesis Ch. 6-7, The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.�

This is nonsense…A parent can be "sorry" for the actions or punishments, which he or she must apply to a child who is disobedient. But, this doesn't mean that they were wrong in implementing the punishment or that they were wrong for having children. They were just applying the cause and effect principal to disobedience. It would seem that you haven't researched the Hebrew word, which was translated into sorry and how it would relate to the verses in question.

Yet, since you feel that God was "wrong" in creating human beings, then it would make no sense "at all" to allow Noah and his family to survive or for the humankind to reach into the billions, when modern sins have easily exceeded the sins of those who lived before the flood. The logic, where someone states they are sorry, should always mean that they are wrong has no basis in reality. Thus, trying to introduce this into your rebuttal, surely has its issues. For a more in depth understanding of Genesis 6:6-7, read Matthew Henry's Commentary (on the subject matter).

So convenient that you supplied your own definition of free-will. But your theology doesn't jive with orthodox Christianity. The definition I provided comes from a Christian website which goes on to say, "God has a mind and is conscious; He has the capacity to make decisions and choose (He has volition); He does not answer to any authority, is not limited by any external constraints, and cannot be coerced. Therefore, based on this definition, we can say, yes, God certainly possesses free will." In my 15 years as an evangelical Christian, I've never heard of or read any Biblical teaching that refuted that God has free-will.

No, it isn't convenience, it's my belief and the bible supports this position. However, you are right, my understandings don't jive with orthodox Christianity. I am not loyal to men, as well as, many of their doctrines of belief. But, only to God and His Son, when dealing with spiritual matters. So, if you are trying to imply that believing in God and His Son means: "you are a modern day Christian," you're wrong…

Therefore what? Since God doesn't need or have free-will he is therefore omniscient? Come on!

Having or not having free-will has nothing to do with the powers, which God possesses! They are not interconnected. However, you are rebutting or distancing yourself from your own question: Is the Christian God omniscient? I accept that He is. If he is, how can he also have free will? I claim He doesn't! I have also given enough information to support my statements. So, it seems that you thought that you had the prefect "catch-22" question, but you really didn't…

Have you ever asked God what pleasure he gets out of watching kids die of cancer? Or watching little girls and boys brutally raped, strangled, and dumped like so much garbage? Most people are a hundred times more compassionate than the god of the Bible.

Your discontentment is quite obvious and explains a lot, but it doesn't come close to the truth. The reality of children dying of cancer is a hereditary/environmental problem and God receives no pleasure from the many mistakes and problems that come from the human family tree and their consequences. However, for those who claim that God doesn't exist, the blame must fall, on the theory of evolution…Yet, when it comes to the abuse of children, this abuse is caused by humans against humans, so those trying to blame God or suggest that pleasure can be received from these type of atrocities must consider: what kind of person would actually believe this…

After allowing so much anguish and suffering over the span of human history I would hope that he would by now have his fill of it. Of course, there is one final act of unthinkable barbarism this god has to fulfill. The casting into the lake of fire of all those millions of unfortunate souls who never had a chance to hear about sweet Jesus. Yes, the end might be near. But not the one you hope for. It just might be the end of ancient superstitions and myths hatched around some nomads campfire.

Again, it seems that you are confused on who has caused all the suffering during the span of human history. The truth is that humans are the main culprits. But, these comments also suggests that you still believe that God exists, though you seem to be trying to hide it or think that your attacks will cause a reaction from God! But, if this isn't the case, then why do humans suffer? The answer must be the theory of evolution…

So, from a biblical perspective. The millions that will cease to exist, because of their refusal to accept God's ways, during the last days are not victims of barbarism, but of mercy…Because, only those who accept God's ways will be happy in the "wondrous" Kingdom to come. Therefore, I'm saddened that you don't want to be there.

[amortalman]

[Replying to amortalman]

Sounds like an armchair definition of free will, and not a very good one I'm afraid. Elsewhere in this thread, I believe I gave a definition that I feel is more precise which is, "The capacity of a conscious mind to make decisions and choices without any external constraints or coercion."

I don't read every post that's included on this forum, nor do I always read every post to a thread.

I wasn't chiding you for not reading my previous posts that's why I repeated the definition.

Yet, you asked a religious question, but conveniently ignore the religious implications to that question…Instead, you use a definition, which is general, secular and of no value to the question.

In what way did I ignore the religious implications?

The definition I furnished has value in that it shows God to have free will because he meets the requirements of the definition.

The definition came from a Christian website, as I stated earlier, so it is not a secular definition. Using that definition the writer of the Christian article went on to show that God does have free will. https://www.gotquestions.org/does-God-h ... -will.html

I've read the Bible cover to cover a few times and I've never come across your definition of free will, or anyone's else's. If I've missed it, please point it out. I think the definition you gave is your own construction, thus an armchair definition, unless, of course, you can furnish credentials to show that you are qualified to write definitions.

So, it seems that your approach is related to theorizing without the benefit of practical experience or what is known as an armchair definition.

What kind of practical experience do you require?

However, the bible clearly shows that free-will is related to choosing between: what is good and what isn't. Hence, your definition of free-will is unrelated to your question and cannot be seriously considered.

I think most Christians believe their God has free-will, and most Christians believe their God has omniscience. I simply asked how these two could logically exist within the same God. The fact that you disagree with a Christian definition of free-will, or the fact that you claim God does not have free-will nor needs free-will, which puts your theology outside that of what Christians believe, is a problem for you, certainly not for me because I don't believe in your God.

Evidently, he desires a lot of blood. Read the Biblical history of Israel.

I have read the history of ancient Israel, but my understandings (to the history) seems to go in a different direction that yours. But, the statement: "desires for blood" is so vague that I can only conclude that this remark is meant to be sarcastic. If it was related to sacrifices, the truth is, very little blood (from each animal) was used in the religious rituals and since about 70 A.D. there has been practically none.

You should know that blood sacrifices have always been a huge part of Yahweh's bloodlust program. He even required the shedding of blood from his own Son. It was a regular occurrence for a bull or goat to be slaughtered to appease their vengeful God. One of the biggest blood-letting of animals supposedly occurred at the dedication of Solomon's Temple:

1 Kings 8:62-66 New International Version (NIV)
The Dedication of the Temple
62 Then the king and all Israel with him offered sacrifices before the Lord. 63 Solomon offered a sacrifice of fellowship offerings to the Lord: twenty-two thousand cattle and a hundred and twenty thousand sheep and goats. So the king and all the Israelites dedicated the temple of the Lord.

Does that sound like very little blood to you? I wonder if the kids got to watch this horrifying massacre? I can't imagine them getting away from it.

Even the temple itself had to be regularly cleaned of blood. One Jewish website furnishes some methods employed to do that:

"It is logical to think that the priests were careful, so that the blood only landed on the floor, and not on the actual curtains.

"Regarding Beit HaMikdash, the whole place was covered with aqueducts and water channels from the surrounding rivers/lakes. These would lead the blood (and other remains) outside.

"For example, the Mishna in Yoma 5, 6 talks about the blood flowing away and outside into the Kidron river, and even sold to farmers as fertilizer."

Yes, it took a lot of blood to keep Yahweh happy.

If, it was related to "wars," then this also is limited in scope. The few instances that occurred were related to defensive actions and/or retribution for crimes previously committed. The horrors that the nations around Israel were committing far exceeded those of the Israelites. So, maybe you need to reread the stories from an unbiased attitude.

Maybe you just need to read the stories, period. There were many more than a few. If I remember correctly the wars went on for seven years and still the native people weren't all driven out. Remember, the Israelites were the ones who invaded the lands belonging to these people, all at the command of Yahweh. They were told to drive them all out with bully Yahweh's help of course. The resident people fought back as one might expect. There was great bloodshed. Of course, in at least one of these battles the young virgin girls were allowed to live (I wonder why) but the women, children, and livestock were slaughtered.

No wrong decisions? Not according to Genesis Ch. 6-7, The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.�

This is nonsense…A parent can be "sorry" for the actions or punishments, which he or she must apply to a child who is disobedient. But, this doesn't mean that they were wrong in implementing the punishment or that they were wrong for having children.

It surely is nonsense! Are you seriously comparing God's decision to practically wipe out the human race with that of a father disciplining his kids? Besides, you've got the whole analogy twisted around. God was not sorry for drowning thousands if not millions of men, women, and children. He was sorry he had made them in the first place.

They were just applying the cause and effect principal to disobedience

There have been a few evil people who drowned their children for disobedience but I'm pretty sure they're in prison awaiting execution, and rightly so.

It would seem that you haven't researched the Hebrew word, which was translated into sorry and how it would relate to the verses in question.

No, I haven't, have you? But I'm willing to bet it's close to "sorry". And while you're looking that meaning up be sure to check on the phrase "He was grieved in His heart." I think you'll find it means "He was grieved in his heart," which reinforces the fact he was sorry he had made mankind.

Yet, since you feel that God was "wrong" in creating human beings,

God himself said he was sorry he did it and grieved in his heart. If one admits he is sorry he did something he is admitting that he made a mistake, else he wouldn't be sorry about it.

...then it would make no sense "at all" to allow Noah and his family to survive or for the humankind to reach into the billions, when modern sins have easily exceeded the sins of those who lived before the flood.

You are absolutely right, it makes no sense, just like all the other fables in the Bible. But take it or leave it, that's the story.

The logic, where someone states they are sorry, should always mean that they are wrong has no basis in reality.

But this fictional God is supposed to be omniscient. He knew when he created man that he would someday destroy him for his wickedness, along with innocent little children and babies. Then he apparently made another bad decision in letting Noah and his family survive knowing they would become just as wicked and have to be dealt with in a more horrific manner. Doesn't make logical sense.

So convenient that you supplied your own definition of free-will. But your theology doesn't jive with orthodox Christianity. The definition I provided comes from a Christian website which goes on to say, "God has a mind and is conscious; He has the capacity to make decisions and choose (He has volition); He does not answer to any authority, is not limited by any external constraints, and cannot be coerced. Therefore, based on this definition, we can say, yes, God certainly possesses free will." In my 15 years as an evangelical Christian, I've never heard of or read any Biblical teaching that refuted that God has free-will.

So, if you are trying to imply that believing in God and His Son means: "you are a modern day Christian," you're wrong…

I can't remember making that implication. If I did I was referring to the teachings of the Bible and all Christian churches. But I don't know what you mean by "modern day Christian."

Is the Christian God omniscient? I accept that He is. If he is, how can he also have free will? I claim He doesn't! I have also given enough information to support my statements. So, it seems that you thought that you had the prefect "catch-22" question, but you really didn't…

In your case, obviously not. But for millions of Christians, the question presents a problem.

Have you ever asked God what pleasure he gets out of watching kids die of cancer? Or watching little girls and boys brutally raped, strangled, and dumped like so much garbage? Most people are a hundred times more compassionate than the god of the Bible.

Your discontentment is quite obvious and explains a lot, but it doesn't come close to the truth. The reality of children dying of cancer is a hereditary/environmental problem and God receives no pleasure from the many mistakes and problems that come from the human family tree and their consequences.

I was perhaps too harsh. I don't think Christians believe God takes pleasure in the suffering of mortals, human or animal. But it is only fair to question why God allows it when it supposedly was within his power to never have allowed it.

If childhood cancer is a hereditary/environmental problem (I'm sure it isn't) the fault still lies with the God who created everything including the things that cause cancer and every other disease that ails mankind.

However, for those who claim that God doesn't exist, the blame must fall, on the theory of evolution

To start with, most atheists don't make such claims. To make such a dogmatic claim one would need to furnish proof or at least very strong evidence. To date, no one has done that that I'm aware of. What they believe is that there isn't enough evidence to support the claim that a god or gods exist. That's pretty much my position. But when it comes to the god of the Bible I'm more convinced he doesn't exist at all. I base that on the ridiculous accounts of himself and his dealings with mankind that we read about in the Bible.

Your claim that the "theory" of evolution produced atheists is ridiculous. Atheism existed long before Charles Darwin's brilliant research. And because the evidence of evolution is so strong today there are many Christians who believe God used evolution to create all of earth's living things.

Furthermore, if the God of the Bible is real he could have told those unfortunate folks in the 14th century to kill the rodents that carried the fleas that carried the bacterium Yersinia pestis which caused the disease and subsequent death of 75 to 150 million people.

…Yet, when it comes to the abuse of children, this abuse is caused by humans against humans, so those trying to blame God or suggest that pleasure can be received from these type of atrocities must consider: what kind of person would actually believe this…

I have to ask what kind of person can believe that their God is all-powerful, merciful and compassionate and yet allows the horrendous suffering of children and animals?

After allowing so much anguish and suffering over the span of human history I would hope that he would by now have his fill of it. Of course, there is one final act of unthinkable barbarism this god has to fulfill. The casting into the lake of fire of all those millions of unfortunate souls who never had a chance to hear about sweet Jesus. Yes, the end might be near. But not the one you hope for. It just might be the end of ancient superstitions and myths hatched around some nomads campfire.

Again, it seems that you are confused on who has caused all the suffering during the span of human history.

It doesn't matter who caused it. Your God could prevent it, and he chooses not to.

The truth is that humans are the main culprits.

And who put that sneaky serpent in the Garden of Eden? Since God created everything he must have done it, otherwise he isn't sovereign over all his creation as the Bible claims. He did it knowing the woman and man would disobey bringing suffering and death to the billions of people who follow. What a cruel thing to do. Had he zapped that slimy beast he wouldn't have had to drown all those folks in a flood and he wouldn't have to cast billions into a lake of fire.

But, these comments also suggests that you still believe that God exists, though you seem to be trying to hide it or think that your attacks will cause a reaction from God!

Totally illogical suggestion. To attack God, IF he were real, as I have done while inviting a reaction from him would make me an insane masochist.

But, if this isn't the case, then why do humans suffer? The answer must be the theory of evolution…

Ah, blame it all on that nasty theory!

Because, only those who accept God's ways will be happy in the "wondrous" Kingdom to come. Therefore, I'm saddened that you don't want to be there.

Oh, I would love to be there...if only there was such a place. But I prefer to live in reality.

[FWI]

[Replying to amortalman]

I've read the Bible cover to cover a few times and I've never come across your definition of free will, or anyone's else's. If I've missed it, please point it out. I think the definition you gave is your own construction, thus an armchair definition, unless, of course, you can furnish credentials to show that you are qualified to write definitions.

FW's definition of free-will (post 18): Free-will is the option to make decisions based on what an individual considers to be right or wrong, even though God has clearly outlined the types of decisions, which are the most beneficial for His created beings.

Firstly, reading the bible is not the same as studying the bible. This is where many fail to grasp the intent of the writings. So, to break down the "correct definition" of free-will (in the bible), we will need to look closer into the writings. The most obvious example is in Genesis 2:8-17, where God is informing Adam of "a type of decision, which would be the most beneficial for him," as well as, the consequences for disobeying or making the wrong choice. Thus, deciding for himself, what is right and what is wrong? So, this example is clear and cannot be disputed, as to what is recorded. This example also supports my supplied definition. Another, example would be the tenth plague of Exodus. God gives the Israelites instructions on how they were to observe the Passover by staying in their homes until morning. This instruction was the most beneficial to their first born (man/animal). However, if anyone refused and disobeyed (some probably did) their first born would have died as well, just like the Egyptians (the wrong choice and not beneficial). Also, Deuteronomy 28 tells us of the blessings (types of decisions, which are beneficial) and curses (types of decisions which are not or deciding for oneself: what is right and what is wrong).
These are only a few of the examples available, which support my definition of free-will. So, it is clear that those who would dispute these biblical examples, have been affected by the secular influence, related to the definition of free-will. This is what's meant by ignoring the religious implications.

You should know that blood sacrifices have always been a huge part of Yahweh's bloodlust program. He even required the shedding of blood from his own Son. It was a regular occurrence for a bull or goat to be slaughtered to appease their vengeful God. One of the biggest blood-letting of animals supposedly occurred at the dedication of Solomon's Temple.

This just shows how uninformed most are…There has never been a "blood sacrifice" related to God's instructions for offerings, not even the Christ! The term sacrifice is broken down into two parts: Firstly, the killing of the animal, then the offering of the animal. The killing of the animal had several regulations to make sure that the process was as painless as possible and was the same for the temple, as it was for the average Israelite who killed an animal for dinner. This process entailed the slicing of the animal's throat to release the life force (blood) of the animal to be offered. This was the most humane way to kill an animal. There was a small amount of blood gathered, which was sprinkled onto the altar to purify it for the offering. The rest of the blood was drained into a "gutter of water," which surrounded the altar and was connected to a "system of drainage pipes" that took the mixture of blood/water outside the temple. This kept the court of the temple clean from most of the blood.

Yet, when it came down to the offering of the animal, "the type of offering" determined, which parts of the animal was offered to God…However, there would be "no blood included." God made it clear that no blood shall be eaten with meat (Gen. 9:4)! So, when, the offering was a burnt offering or freewill offering, the whole animal was consumed with fire and the aroma was sweet, there was no blood. In other cases only the fat (of the offering) was burned, where the remaining flesh (mostly) was given to the priests for food. Therefore, since the offerings to God were completely burned and only the smoke or aroma had "figuratively" reached God, there would be no blood sacrifice at all. It seems that you are confused with the process that "most of the Israelites" performed and the process in which the pagans and certain evil Israelites offered their children and others, with their life force or blood still in them, to the fire.

Totally illogical suggestion. To attack God, IF he were real, as I have done while inviting a reaction from him would make me an insane masochist.

Not really, this is not unusual for those who refer to themselves as an agnostic atheist or those wanting some type of proof, not trusting in faith, yet claiming if prove was available, they would then believe. These are the ones sitting on the fence and waiting to decide, which direction to go. They actually think that there is back door into God's Kingdom. But, there isn't.

Ah, blame it all on that nasty theory!

Well, of course! If, there is no God, which explains existence and why it all came to be, then that nasty theory is all that's left. Thus, if you can't blame God, because you don't believe He exists, then what's your answer and solution to the sufferings in the world? I'll be waiting for your words of wisdom…

The rest of your comments are just opinions and of no value to learning or truth. Thus, I decided not to respond to them. Yet, I'm leaving you with some real time facts as to how many animals are killed each year in the U.S. This shows how insignificant your example, related to Solomon's temple and the offerings, which related to its finishing really are. So, the ones who really have a thirst for blood is man, not God. This is evident by the fact that there hasn't been a temple sacrifice for about 1950 years. https://animalclock.org/

[amortalman]

[Replying to amortalman]

I've read the Bible cover to cover a few times and I've never come across your definition of free will, or anyone's else's. If I've missed it, please point it out. I think the definition you gave is your own construction, thus an armchair definition, unless, of course, you can furnish credentials to show that you are qualified to write definitions.

FW's definition of free-will (post 18): Free-will is the option to make decisions based on what an individual considers to be right or wrong, even though God has clearly outlined the types of decisions, which are the most beneficial for His created beings.

Your definition is just that: your definition. You do make a good case of defining free-will from a Biblical perspective, but only from a Biblical perspective. If I'm undecided about whether to wear black socks or brown socks today there is no right or wrong moral decision. It becomes a matter of preference. To bring God into the equation might work for you but not for me. So your definition is limited to some of, but probably not all of, those who believe in God.

So, I will stick to the definition I thought was correct. Free-will is "The capacity of a conscious mind to make decisions and choices without any external constraints or coercion."

That definition is not bound by the laws of some god. I do accept that according to the Bible your definition has some merit. But the definition does not fit outside the Bible.

Going back to the OP before we got hung up on definitions, I pointed out that the god of the bible fit that all-inclusive definition. And I stand by that.

So, it is clear that those who would dispute these biblical examples, have been affected by the secular influence, related to the definition of free-will. This is what's meant by ignoring the religious implications.

I thank you for clearing up the religious implications. I have definitely been affected by secular influence as you have been affected by religious influence.

You should know that blood sacrifices have always been a huge part of Yahweh's bloodlust program. He even required the shedding of blood from his own Son. It was a regular occurrence for a bull or goat to be slaughtered to appease their vengeful God. One of the biggest blood-letting of animals supposedly occurred at the dedication of Solomon's Temple.

This just shows how uninformed most are…There has never been a "blood sacrifice" related to God's instructions for offerings, not even the Christ!

I came to that conclusion from Heb 9:22

And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. If there can be no forgiveness apart from the shedding of blood then it's a blood sacrifice no matter what one wants to call it.

The term sacrifice is broken down into two parts: Firstly, the killing of the animal, then the offering of the animal. The killing of the animal had several regulations to make sure that the process was as painless as possible and was the same for the temple, as it was for the average Israelite who killed an animal for dinner. This process entailed the slicing of the animal's throat to release the life force (blood) of the animal to be offered. This was the most humane way to kill an animal. There was a small amount of blood gathered, which was sprinkled onto the altar to purify it for the offering. The rest of the blood was drained into a "gutter of water," which surrounded the altar and was connected to a "system of drainage pipes" that took the mixture of blood/water outside the temple. This kept the court of the temple clean from most of the blood.

With all that explanation these bare facts remain: There was bloodshed and a great deal of it.

Yet, when it came down to the offering of the animal, "the type of offering" determined, which parts of the animal was offered to God…However, there would be "no blood included." God made it clear that no blood shall be eaten with meat (Gen. 9:4)! So, when, the offering was a burnt offering or freewill offering, the whole animal was consumed with fire and the aroma was sweet, there was no blood. In other cases only the fat (of the offering) was burned, where the remaining flesh (mostly) was given to the priests for food. Therefore, since the offerings to God were completely burned and only the smoke or aroma had "figuratively" reached God, there would be no blood sacrifice at all. It seems that you are confused with the process that "most of the Israelites" performed and the process in which the pagans and certain evil Israelites offered their children and others, with their life force or blood still in them, to the fire.

Your lengthy explanation does not negate the fact that much blood was spilled over the course of ancient Israel's history, thousands upon thousands of animals had their throats cut.

Totally illogical suggestion. To attack God, IF he were real, as I have done while inviting a reaction from him would make me an insane masochist.

Not really, this is not unusual for those who refer to themselves as an agnostic atheist or those wanting some type of proof, not trusting in faith, yet claiming if prove was available, they would then believe. These are the ones sitting on the fence and waiting to decide, which direction to go. They actually think that there is back door into God's Kingdom. But, there isn't.

Your assumptions are amazing, exceeded only by your unfounded accusations. You assume atheists would still be atheists even if God proved his existence. I can think of many ways he could do this. You accuse atheists of sitting on the fence and even looking for a backdoor into God's kingdom. Ridiculous!

Ah, blame it all on that nasty theory!

Well, of course! If, there is no God, which explains existence and why it all came to be, then that nasty theory is all that's left.

The bible hasn't explained how man came to be, it made up fantastic tales. The theory of evolution, however, explains it logically and scientifically. It is consistent with what we can actually see and study and requires no Almighty to get it done. For me, it takes much more faith to believe a god created man from the dust of the ground and woman from a rib taken from man's side than it does to believe that life on this planet evolved slowly through the process of gene mutation and natural selection.

Thus, if you can't blame God, because you don't believe He exists, then what's your answer and solution to the sufferings in the world? I'll be waiting for your words of wisdom…

Thank you! I was beginning to think you didn't put much credence in my positions. I'm glad you brought up all the sufferings in the world. That has always been a problem for Christian apologists. If the biblical god is as loving, compassionate, and powerful as the holy book makes him out to be why does he allow all the suffering in the world?

The world is exactly as one would expect it to be if there is no god.

As for answers and solutions as to why there is so much suffering, it is not incumbent upon me to have any.

The rest of your comments are just opinions and of no value to learning or truth. Thus, I decided not to respond to them.

A very obvious cop out.

Yet, I'm leaving you with some real time facts as to how many animals are killed each year in the U.S. This shows how insignificant your example, related to Solomon's temple and the offerings, which related to its finishing really are.

The website you provided (assuming it is accurate) shows how many animals were killed for FOOD. That is the stated purpose for the killing - to feed people, not to appease a bloodthirsty god. Altho food came from many of the animal sacrifices in the bible that wasn't the stated purpose. Big difference.

So, the ones who really have a thirst for blood is man, not God.

Wrong on the same grounds plus one more. Man has a hunger in his belly, not a thirst for blood. But even if man does have a bloodthirst does that excuse god from having one?

This is evident by the fact that there hasn't been a temple sacrifice for about 1950 years. https://animalclock.org/

That's even more evidence that the slaughtered animals weren't necessary for food.