Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[JM2C]

Christians have manipulated several verses from the Hebrew Scriptures to "prove" their belief in their version of Satan. So tell me, where did the word "lucifer" come from? Is it in the Hebrew or the Greek versions of the Bible?

You mean adulterate the word of God? Example please of words in the Hebrew scriptures that Christians manipulated/adulterated.

Was it from the Ancient Hebrew text, that is before is was translated to Septuagint or the LXX/OG, or after, and that is, the 1St and 2nd century AD Hebrew scriptures?

If from the Ancient Hebrew Text, I think Christians were not around that time yet. If from the LXX/OG, Christians were around that time already, but it was what it was, the LXX/OG and not the Hebrew scriptures you were reffering to which were translated by the Jews in the 1st and 2nd century AD, and then was translated from the Hebrew scriptures and not from the Ancient Hebrew text, to another version of Greek language of the LXX but not from the original LXX/OG by Aquila and Theodotion, and in the early fifth century CE by the Latin Vulgate of the Christian Jerome.

Confused?

IOW, Christians did not do any altering of the very word of God. I hope you are not drawing the Jews into this debate with your unfounded accusation about how Christians manipulated, according to your knowledge, the very word of God.

If you can provide proof please let us see them.

 

[idav]

That makes absolutely no sense. If the pot is created defectively, then the fault lies upon the one who created it. Are you saying that if you were to buy a defective pot from a potter, that you would not blame the potter for making a sh***y pot? You would blame the pot instead? This analogy is flawed on so many levels.

What if you made a perfect robot with perfect free will and then tried to tell it not to do bad things. That is a closer analogy. IDK the robot will probably just take over the master and whatever else unless it had guilt or something.

 

[JM2C]

Love comes from the brain... not the heart. The heart transports blood throughout the body. Emotions do not originate there.

“The heart transports blood throughout the body.” You want to be specific in everything. My meaning is what I follow and not yours. If you say the literal heart then you did not follow my premise with your twisted conclusion.

Romeo:
Did my heart love till now? forswear it, sight!
For I ne'er saw true beauty till this night.

Or Romeo should say something like this, “Did “The heart transports blood throughout the body” love till now? forswear it, sight!
For I ne'er saw true beauty till this night.

“Love comes from the brain.” Tell that to Juliet and see what happen…

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not really! The pot did not follow the will of the Potter. Therefore, one cannot blame the Potter for the fault of the pot.

Your original analogy implies that the pot's will is irrelevant.

When a product fails, the blame can lie with a few possible places:

- the materials were not up to spec. In this case, God provided the materials.
- the designer failed to account for the stresses the product would be subjected to. In this case, the designer is God.
- the user used the product improperly. Again, the "user" of humanity is God.

If we're pots and God is the potmaker, then our failures are God's failures.

 

[JM2C]

What if you made a perfect robot with perfect free will and then tried to tell it not to do bad things. That is a closer analogy. IDK the robot will probably just take over the master and whatever else unless it had guilt or something.

The never ending “what if” is what we call speculative philosophy, or nothing but speculations.

 

[Nakosis]

Do you ever love someone from the heart, like your parents, wife, kids, friends? Are they genuine? Or do you need logical proof or material evidence to validate your love to anyone, if you do, then your love is empty or invalidated and therefore, they are not genuine.

Wasn't really asking about love, unless you feel love and faith are the same?

Faith is trust with minimal certainty. You trust in something when you have very little reason to have that trust.

The point is where people feel the need to have faith in something or someone they will find reasons to justify that faith.

For example a person prays and their child survives some life threatening event. It was because of their faith. If their child doesn't survive, it is because their faith is being tested. They need now to have even more faith.

With enough faith, God will make life better for you.

People lose their faith right? They question that faith makes any real difference. Non-believers go through the same ups and downs in life that believers do. So what benefit is there to faith in God?

You have genuine faith in Jesus? Me, I have no faith in Christian belief. My lack of faith makes my life no better, no worse.

I suppose faith justifies faith. Nothing else seems to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you ever love someone from the heart, like your parents, wife, kids, friends? Are they genuine? Or do you need logical proof or material evidence to validate your love to anyone, if you do, then your love is empty or invalidated and therefore, they are not genuine.

You're conflating two different concepts. The fact we can't peer into someone's head and tell whether their love is real doesn't mean we can't doubt someone who claims he has a girlfriend but doesn't have any evidence, only excuses for why they're never seen together.

Did you automatically fall for that "girlfriend from Canada" line? (We met at summer camp. She really wants to meet you guys, but shucks - she doesn't have a passport. Here's a picture of her. Yes, it's the photo that came with the frame; she's a model and that was one of her gigs).

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

“The heart transports blood throughout the body.” You want to be specific in everything.

Yeah... It's called being realistic.

My meaning is what I follow and not yours.

Okay... then your definition contradicts proven science.

If you say the literal heart then you did not follow my premise with your twisted conclusion.

Yes I mean the literal heart... you know... the only one we actually have.

Romeo:
Did my heart love till now? forswear it, sight!
For I ne'er saw true beauty till this night.

Or Romeo should say something like this, “Did “The heart transports blood throughout the body” love till now? forswear it, sight!
For I ne'er saw true beauty till this night.

“Love comes from the brain.” Tell that to Juliet and see what happen…

Yes. Those living in the Medieval days believed that the heart was the control center for emotions, we now know that is false, and that it is really your brain. Your point being?

 

[JM2C]

Your original analogy implies that the pot's will is irrelevant.

Please explain this “the pot’s will is irrelevant”

 

[JM2C]

If we're pots and God is the potmaker, then our failures are God's failures.

Caesar’s son failure is Caesar’s failure? yes or no? Human failure is base on human own free will and not God's will.

 

[idav]

Your original analogy implies that the pot's will is irrelevant.

The pot's will should be relevant if autonomy was supposed to be in the works for "perfection". In which case an autonomous being works perfectly if it can do good and evil.

 

[JM2C]

When a product fails, the blame can lie with a few possible places:

- the materials were not up to spec. In this case, God provided the materials.
- the designer failed to account for the stresses the product would be subjected to. In this case, the designer is God.
- the user used the product improperly. Again, the "user" of humanity is God.

Extrapolating an analogy beyond the scope of the Potter and pots by giving another analogy can create confusion.

 

[JM2C]

Yeah... It's called being realistic.

Okay... then your definition contradicts proven science.

Define the tenet of science without applying the No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please explain this “the pot’s will is irrelevant”

The whole point of the analogy in the Bible with the pots and the potter is that our desires don't matter. God has picked a purpose for each of us, and if we don't like it, too bad.

In any case, if we do have a tendency to vary from what we're "supposed" to do, whose fault would that be? Again, it falls back on the designer or the manufacturer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Extrapolating an analogy beyond the scope of the Potter and pots by giving another analogy can create confusion.

I'm not giving another analogy; I'm exploring yours.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The pot's will should be relevant if autonomy was supposed to be in the works for "perfection". In which case an autonomous being works perfectly if it can do good and evil.

The analogy is an argument for why the pot's will shouldn't matter. If you think autonomy is a good thing, you'll need a different analogy.

 

[JM2C]

Yes. Those living in the Medieval days believed that the heart was the control center for emotions, we now know that is false, and that it is really your brain. Your point being?

At least God gave me a heart so I could use my brain. While you use your heart just to flow your blood to your brain. What happen if the brain stops? Will the flow of blood from the heart stop too? Its possible in your case because you use heart just for your brain only. IOW, your heart has no more function if your brain stops. You know what they call it?
The lonely heart.

 

[JM2C]

If we're pots and God is the potmaker, then our failures are God's failures.

Please answer this and thanks.

Caesar’s son failure is Caesar’s failure? yes or no? Human failure is base on human own free will and not God's will.

 

[idav]

The analogy is an argument for why the pot's will shouldn't matter. If you think autonomy is a good thing, you'll need a different analogy.

Thats why I suggested the robot analogy, and was told there are so many what ifs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please answer this and thanks.

Caesar’s son failure is Caesar’s failure? yes or no? Human failure is base on human own free will and not God's will.

The relationship between a father and his son is materially different from the relationship between a potter and his pot. Caesar does not have the right to dictate a purpose for his son.

A human parent is generally not responsible for their children's actions because the child is affected by many factors beyond the parent's control. What's beyond God's control?