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

[CG Didymus]

Why did God put a temptation in front of Adam and Eve and put a tempter in the garden to deceive them?

You are suggesting that God created the evil from the beginning, that God is the author of sin. The devil did not follow the will of God in the garden of eden, but his/LDS own will. Therefore, the devil has his own free will against the will of God and pursued this will in the garden of Eden.

Does God know the beginning and ending of the story? Therefore, wasn't it him that laid out and planned all the events being played out? If you wrote a murder mystery and someone asked, "Why did you have the husband do it?" How would you answer? Would you say, "Hey, it's my book and I'll write what I want."

Well, isn't God the author of this story we're acting out? He could have written it differently could he? Why us? Why the devil? He made the characters and made them the way they are? Are we free to ad lib? Or do we have to follow his script?

 

[CG Didymus]

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

From Hebrew to Greek to Latin... is there ever anything that gets lost in translation? I would think so, but all I want you to answer is... What is the Hebrew word and the Greek word that is translated "lucifer"?

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

I did a search. Here's two links for you. The first one is Wikipedia. Here's some of what it said:

Early Christians were influenced by the association of Isaiah 14:12-18 with the Devil, which had developed in the period between the writing of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament…Origen (184/185 – 253/254) interpreted such Old Testament passages as being about manifestations of the Devil; but of course, writing in Greek, not Latin, he did not identify the Devil with the name "Lucifer".[56][57][58][59] Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225), who wrote in Latin, also understood Isaiah 14:14 ("I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High") as spoken by the Devil,[60] but "Lucifer" is not among the numerous names and phrases he used to describe the Devil.[61] Even at the time of the Latin writer Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430), "Lucifer" had not yet become a common name for the Devil.[56]
Some time later, the metaphor of the morning star that Isaiah 14:12 applied to a king of Babylon gave rise to the general use of the Latin word for "morning star", capitalized, as the original name of the Devil before his fall from grace, linking Isaiah 14:12 with Luke 10:18 ("I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven") and interpreting the passage in Isaiah as an allegory of Satan's fall from heaven.[62][63]
However, the understanding of the morning star in Isaiah 14:12 as a metaphor referring to a king of Babylon continued also to exist among Christians. Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393 – c. 457) wrote that Isaiah calls the king "morning star", not as being the star, but as having had the illusion of being it.[64] The same understanding is shown in Christian translations of the passage, which in English generally use "morning star" rather than treating the word as a proper name, "Lucifer". So too in other languages, such as French,[65] German,[66] Portuguese,[67] and Spanish.[68] Even the Vulgate text in Latin is printed with lower-case lucifer (morning star), not upper-case Lucifer (proper name).[5]
Calvin said: "The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance: for the context plainly shows these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians."[69] Luther also considered it a gross error to refer this verse to the devil.[70]

Here's the second from Apologetic Press on is Satan Lucifer.

…It is sad, but nevertheless true, that on occasion Bible students attribute to God’s Word facts and concepts that it neither teaches nor advocates. These ill-advised beliefs run the entire gamut—from harmless misinterpretations to potentially soul-threatening false doctrines.
Although there are numerous examples from both categories that could be listed, perhaps one of the most popular misconceptions among Bible believers is that Satan also is designated as “Lucifer” within the pages of the Bible. What is the origin of the name Lucifer, what is its meaning, and is it a synonym for “Satan”? Here are the facts.
The word “Lucifer” is used in the King James Version only once, in Isaiah 14:12: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” The Hebrew word translated “Lucifer” is helel (or heylel), from the root, hâlâl, meaning “to shine” or “to bear light.” Keil and Delitzsch noted that “t derives its name in other ancient languages also from its striking brilliancy, and is here called ben-shachar (son of the dawn)... (1982, 7:311). However, the KJV translators did not translate helel as Lucifer because of something inherent in the Hebrew term itself. Instead, they borrowed the name from Jerome’s translation of the Bible (A.D. 383-405) known as the Latin Vulgate. Jerome, likely believing that the term was describing the planet Venus, employed the Latin term “Lucifer” (“light-bearing”) to designate “the morning star” (Venus). Only later did the suggestion originate that Isaiah 14:12ff. was speaking of the devil. Eventually, the name Lucifer came to be synonymous with Satan. But is Satan “Lucifer”?
No, he is not. The context into which verse 12 fits begins in verse 4 where God told Isaiah to “take up this parable against the king of Babylon…

I'm sure you will always believe that..."Christians did not do any altering of the very word of God." But, really? Wasn't even Jesus was called the "bright and morning star"? IMO, the name lucifer is not The Satan.

 

[JM2C]

If you believe enough, you will create the perception of this God.

Perception of God came from God’s revelations through believing in the Lord Jesus Christ. True Christianity is a revealed religion from God and therefore not a creation of a human mind, if that is what you are implying by the word “create”

 

[JM2C]

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?

That is the reason why we cannot solve the meaning of the ones analogy by giving more analogies because it is just going to create more confusion.
The best thing is to go back to the text where is says “Potter and pots/clay”

I hope you understand.

 

[Nakosis]

Perception of God came from God’s revelations through believing in the Lord Jesus Christ. True Christianity is a revealed religion from God and therefore not a creation of a human mind, if that is what you are implying by the word “create”

What I mean is that the "mind" is capable of allowing one to perceive what they want to perceive.

"True" Christianity, I honestly don't know what that means. Christians claim they are true Christians but their beliefs have little common ground.

Not that I doubt their sincerity or yours. Man is quite capable of fooling himself into belief. However you can't all be correct. Not only of Christianity, but people of other faiths are sincere as well.

Sincerity, genuine faith, actual experiences that support your faith, everyone, anyone can have that. You trust these things as anyone would, but how can you really think your personal experiences hold any greater validity then the next person's who maybe is Jewish, Muslim, Pagan, Wiccan?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is the reason why we cannot solve the meaning of the ones analogy by giving more analogies because it is just going to create more confusion.
The best thing is to go back to the text where is says “Potter and pots/clay”

I hope you understand.

I understand just fine: it devalues humanity and our free will. A pot has no right to autonomy and has no intrinsic value; the only value it has is what the potter chooses to bestow upon it.

It's the same message as the moral of the Book of Job: "I'm God, you're not. I'm powerful, you're not. It's not your place to question me. You're mine to do with as I please."

 

[JM2C]

Why did God put a temptation in front of Adam and Eve and put a tempter in the garden to deceive them?

Does God know the beginning and ending of the story?

Therefore, wasn't it him that laid out and planned all the events being played out?

If you wrote a murder mystery and someone asked, "Why did you have the husband do it?"

How would you answer?

Would you say, "Hey, it's my book and I'll write what I want."

Well, isn't God the author of this story we're acting out?

He could have written it differently could he?

Why us?

Why the devil?

He made the characters and made them the way they are?

Are we free to ad lib?

Or do we have to follow his script?

I gave you enough answers to all these repeated questions you have. Why are you always answering my questions to you with questions.

All these questions are related to “Potter and pots/clay” 9-10ths_Penguin and I and others were debating. You are free to join us..

 

[JM2C]

What I mean is that the "mind" is capable of allowing one to perceive what they want to perceive.

If one believes enough that he could be a Doctor or a Lawyer someday, one could create this perception of being one, but the problem is, this created perception only existed abstractly in the mind because the mind created it.

If I follow your analogy: if I believe enough, I can create the perception of God. Therefore, it is my mind that created this perception of God. IOW, my mind invented the God. True Christianity is not something like that, it is a revealed religion from the very word of God, the bible, and not an invention of a human mind. I do believe that the bible is the word of God.

1Co 2:14 But people who aren’t Christians can’t understand these truths from God’s Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them because only those who have the Spirit can understand what the Spirit means.

1Co 2:15 We who have the Spirit understand these things, but others can’t understand us at all.

1Co 2:16 How could they? For,
“Who can know what the Lord is thinking?
Who can give him counsel?”
But we can understand these things, for we have the mind of Christ.

 

[JM2C]

"True" Christianity, I honestly don't know what that means. Christians claim they are true Christians but their beliefs have little common ground.

As a Gentile, I became a true Christian by faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ “without the deeds of the law”. IOW, if I follow the Law of Moses after I was justified by faith alone then I become a “semi-hybrid Christian” or if I mix faith with any other traditions of men or doctrines invented by human mind then I become a “semi-hybrid Christian” IOW again, there is a True Christian and the semi-hybrid Christian.

What is a true Christian? A true Christian is very subjective and yet by means of doctrines, that is base in the bible and not by human traditions, it can be very objective.

IOW, by means of doctrines written in the bible, that a true Christian should follow, one can define a true Christian church from a semi-hybrid Christian church.

 

[JM2C]

Not that I doubt their sincerity or yours. Man is quite capable of fooling himself into belief. However you can't all be correct. Not only of Christianity, but people of other faiths are sincere as well.

Where do you base such a conclusion that “you can’t all be correct”?
If you say you don’t know what a

"True" Christianity, I honestly don't know what that means.

means?

 

[JM2C]

Sincerity, genuine faith, actual experiences that support your faith, everyone, anyone can have that. You trust these things as anyone would, but how can you really think your personal experiences hold any greater validity then the next person's who maybe is Jewish, Muslim, Pagan, Wiccan?

Again, I have to base my belief in the bible. All these religions are nonexistence before the God of Genesis and that is, before chapter 1:1 and after chapter 1:1.

Do you know any other religions in the history of mankind that has god/gods before the God of Genesis chapter 1:1 before and after that verse? There is none! From eternity into time there is no other god/gods but the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jaoob.

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

“I am Alpha and Omega” meaning no other gods except the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob could fit in between the beginning and ending of time and into eternity with the believers.

 

[ruffen]

Again, I have to base my belief in the bible.

And that is a serious credibility problem.

 

[McBell]

Again, I have to base my belief in the bible. All these religions are nonexistence before the God of Genesis and that is, before chapter 1:1 and after chapter 1:1.

Do you know any other religions in the history of mankind that has god/gods before the God of Genesis chapter 1:1 before and after that verse? There is none! From eternity into time there is no other god/gods but the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jaoob.

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

“I am Alpha and Omega” meaning no other gods except the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob could fit in between the beginning and ending of time and into eternity with the believers.

Classic textbook example of circular reasoning.

 

[JM2C]

However, the KJV translators did not translate*helel*as Lucifer because of something inherent in the Hebrew term itself.

Instead, they borrowed the name from Jerome’s translation of the Bible (A.D. 383-405) known as the*Latin Vulgate.

KJV borrowed from Jerome? True!

But where do KJV came from or from what translation did it come from?

Masoretic Hebrew text!

And where do the Masoretic Hebrew text came from?

Where did Jerome got this translation from?

From the Hebrew text and not from the LXX/OG or the un-available Ancient Hebrew text.

From this point on you should be able to understand who did the translating and what kind of translation they did. I don’t see any Christians here doing anything about translating the word of God like you were suggesting before, that Christians manipulated the bible.

 

[JM2C]

Jerome, likely believing that the term was describing the planet Venus, employed the Latin term “Lucifer” (“light-bearing”) to designate “the morning star” (Venus).

Only later did the suggestion originate that Isaiah 14:12ff. was speaking of the devil. Eventually, the name Lucifer came to be synonymous with Satan. But is Satan “Lucifer”?

No, he is not. The context into which verse 12 fits begins in verse 4 where God told Isaiah to “take up this parable against the*king of Babylon…

Exactly a “parable” meaning God was telling Isaiah about what happened to Lucifer/good before he became bad/Satan the devil.

Before the fall of Lucifer he was good. Lucifer sinned against God then he became Satan the devil or an Adversary of God in the Garden of Eden. That is why his name is Lucifer D. Satan or LDS [no other meaning intended here]

Lk 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Do you know the right meaning of Lucifer in the Ancient Hebrew text or the LXX/OG? Lucifer!

 

[JM2C]

Classic textbook example of circular reasoning.

Are you gonna trap me with that “No True Scotsman Fallacy” again?

I wonder where agnostics getting their tenets from? From a fantasy books, or comic books perhaps?

They reason [their philosophy] from a fantasy, or comic book?

Faith or Reason?

I rather have faith because I can’t reason the way they reason.

Living in a fantasy world huh

 

[McBell]

Are you gonna trap me with that “No True Scotsman Fallacy” again?

I wonder where agnostics getting their tenets from? From a fantasy books, or comic books perhaps?

They reason [their philosophy] from a fantasy, or comic book?

Faith or Reason?

I rather have faith because I can’t reason the way they reason.

Living in a fantasy world huh

So much for your bold empty claims of the higher moral ground.

If you do not like when your logical fallacies are pointed out, stop using logical fallacies.

Do you not see the irony of your whole "tenets from fantasy" rants?
Do you not see the blatant hypocrisy?

And you wonder why you give no credibility to your favoured deity?

Sad really.

 

[JM2C]

And that is a serious credibility problem.

Yeah, I am really very serious about my belief. Credibility? I got no problem expressing it.

Credibility always lies on how serious one’s belief is that makes it a problem for others who can not understand. Therefore, credibility became a very serious problem to those people who oppose someone’s belief. They are not sure where they stand at all.

IOW, as Elvis Presley or John Lennon wrote: “don’t criticize what you don’t understand” but I think it was Mick Jagger said that.

 

[JM2C]

So much for your bold empty claims of the higher moral ground.

If you do not like when your logical fallacies are pointed out, stop using logical fallacies.

Do you not see the irony of your whole "tenets from fantasy" rants?
Do you not see the blatant hypocrisy?

And you wonder why you give no credibility to your favoured deity?

Sad really.

You wanna be your god now with your “do not, do not” huh