Sounds delusional, like the meek shall inherit the earth.
Regards
DL
Yes, but the nature I used to break my legs came from god directly.
Get with the analogy properly.
Regards
DL
So you want to argue determinism = “God did it - NOT Me!”
And what your argument will lead to is that God (the cause of all things) caused you to have a life and gave you the ability to make choices - to the best of your ability and knowledge. And from that you are expected to learn - by making mistakes and learning how to correct for them.
The baby attempts to walk for the first time - he falls ("sins against his own intent - his “target”). God gave the baby the ability to recover without too serious damage. The baby tries again - using the God given ability to learn. Eventually he learns and lives on to talk about it.
In that scenario God’s gift of durability and learning capability saved the life - no doctor/redeemer/savior was required.
But what happens when the God given talents are insufficient for self-saving?
That’s when outside help is required - a doctor/redeemer/savior.
So all that is required is to go to whoever can fix the problem - also a choice you have been given by the very God you want to blame.
So you prefer that God gave you no such talents or choices? - perhaps no life at all - after all - life IS using your talents to learn how to survive - to not be condemned - which is greatly affected by being able to allow someone else to help you - but you seem to want to trash the one trying to help - a drowning swimmer trying to drown the rescuer.
The only question now is that since God has now informed you of your options and situation - are you going to use your talents to learn now? If not - you choose your own condemnation - you choose to not have your leg mended - and you suffer accordingly - exactly as has been preached for a few thousands years now (maybe its time to pay attention?).
If you choose to resist being helped and suffer because of it - in your suffering you serve to help others learn - what to NOT do - also a God given environment for life and learning. Every animal learns as it watches others get eaten - God doesn’t keep it a secret.
“That’s when outside help is required - a doctor/redeemer/savior.”
So Yahweh made us with a need that only he could fulfill, by having us abdicate our responsibility for our sins, and going directly against what Jesus taught. IOW, we have to sin to be saved.
That immoral position is what you favor. Right?
Compare your view to moral teachings and good law and note how immoral your position is.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
Regards
DL
So now your argument is -
“Cursed be the mother who bares the infant dependent upon her own suckle.”
and
“How dare an infant abdicate its own responsibilities and plead for nurture from its mother!”
Aren’t you the cheery chap. 
And what is “going directly against what Jesus taught”? 
Sometimes you have to make mistakes to discover that they are mistakes - don’t you believe in science?
In both cases it is being said to not generationally punish [or reward] the son for what the father did or the father for what the son did. And in the Deuteronomy quote - at the time - killing people for their failures was the practice - he was saying don’t kill the father because of the son’s failure - [IF you are going kill anyone] - just kill the son. The Egyptians were even killing wives because the husband died - these people were not the most brilliant.
Today since we don’t kill people for their failures (except in communist countries and CRT advocates) he would probably say - “Fathers shall not be imprisoned because of their children - Each one shall be imprisoned for his own sin.”
Or in the time of common slavery - “Masters shall not be imprisoned because of their slaves or visa versa - Each one shall be imprisoned for his own sin.”
“Judge people by the content of their character not by their connections to the corrupt.”
In none of those cases are the punishments being advocated. The point in all of them is to NOT punish or reward unjustly. Where or how to punish or reward at all - is another matter.
Jesus just said - “Tone it down - stop killing and cursing everyone just because they made a mistake - who doesn’t? If we have the power to heal - use it.”
Jesus was pointing out the third option to judgement -
- Judged outstandingly bad - punish
- Judged outstandingly good - reward
- Judged guilty but fixable - fix it
The whole point to judgement is to make things better.
If someone’s leg is broken - don’t cut it off - fix it.
If someone’s car is in disrepair - don’t throw it away - repair it.
If a person has poor judgement - don’t kill him - teach him better judgement.
“Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water” 
Is that what you are claiming is against “moral teachings and good law”?
You ignored the major part.
Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
Given that Jewish thinking that Jesus would have taught, Jesus could not and would not die for us.
To think that a god would die for his creations is not the brightest thinking, when he could just adjust all to what he wants.
Right?
Regards
DL
Greatest I Am,
I am not a god but I brought my children into the world and I would die for them if it came down to that…
Is love and saving others necessarily about being the brightest kind of thinking or can it be more emotionally involved, more focused on survival of others?
Why would a God bother to create its creatures if they would become only puppets whose strings would be cut to begin again and again and again DELETE. How much adjusting might that take? That almost seems to be like an imaginary world to me. lol
We are puppets without a free will, if you go by scriptures.
Please read this old O.P.
Are non-believers doomed by Divine Design?
Scriptures say that God decides if a person will be a believer or non-believer. Those scriptures are shown in this link.
youtube.com/watch?v=byHYeHN4ZUQ
Those quotes seems to really screw up the free will notion that Christians say God gives us.
The free will that God offers is kind of a joke anyway given the number of people whose free will to live is ignored in the billions of adults, children and babies that God is shown to torture and murder in scriptures.
If the bible and Yahweh are to be believed, and as a non-believer, I, of course, cannot believe it, thanks to God, by God’s design and will against me, then why did God deny me belief or faith?
Even more important to believers, might be to answer the question of; did God make you a believer in things that you can only hope exists and can never confirm?
Are you happy with God ignoring or negating your free will to think as you please?
I have assumed that God’s work of creating both believers and non-believers is working. If that is so, and you believers must think it so, just as I as a non-believer cannot think it is working, — and Jesus said that those with faith could do all he did and more, — then there is not even one believer or person of faith that has ever existed.
Either the bible and Christianity is all a lie, or there must be some who can do what Jesus did.
What is your choice of those two options?
Is the bible and Christianity a lie, or is God just not creating any people with faith, — which would make all Christians who say they have faith, — liars.
I mean no insult here but someone is definitely lying, if we read what is written and look at reality and listen to Christians.
What do you think is the truth?
Is it just for God to create people doomed to hell even if they wanted to believe?
Regards
DL
It seems that it is you who ignored my response to that very issue -
“that Jesus would have taught”? - the killing? - that is the opposite of what Jesus taught.
Wrong. As explained - life IS the making of choices to learn to survive. Without that ability to make their own choices - there is no life.
And there is a very specific reason Jesus had to die in order to save others. It is about the fact that extortion (“do what we say or die”) is what was controlling the world - and the only way out of extortion is sacrifice. Every battle is the same - when the enemy has too much control over the situation through extortion (such as the present state of the US government - most especially O’Biden) - people have to just say “I’m not going to go along any more - go ahead - kill me - because I am not going to betray my people and my cause”.
Have you earnestly asked for it? It doesn’t seem so. You seem to have chosen condemnation of that God - “You didn’t give me what I wanted - FU!”).
God never creates people with faith. Faith is one of the lessons to learn - and everyone starts at a little different situation - requiring different order of learning - individual choices all along the way.
Are you really sure that it isn’t you - to yourself?
The path was shown - it is up to the living to make the choice to follow it - or not.
Science is no different. Ignore science and what happens? - condemnation (to the extent of the problem).
“Why don’t scientists just make babies that instinctively do what science says”? China is working on that.
Do you really want to be a communist drone? Or to have the freedom to choose your own path? You say one - but seem to insist on the other.
Stupid and immoral.
Ride your scapegoat alone. All moral cowards will.
Regards
DL
[list]Cries and complaints from up in a tree
A cat found petrified by gravity.
A rescuer offers a helping hand.
“No thanks you nasty immoral man!”[/list:u]
Too stupidly blind, or immoral, to recognize that your prick of a god threw that cat up there.
You were wrongly condemned, idiot, so stop kissing the ass of your corrupt immoral genocidal judge.
Regards
DL
You are not biased are you? 
:-"
I don’t like to see ad homs in threads.
Especially not in the religion and spirituality forum.
I suggest you consider your words before you post them.
Indeed, but not stupid.
If you are not biased to my moral side, you should be.
Regards
DL
Something occured to me.
The anrhropormic myth of the architype father through Jesus -love’ extends the childish feelings of this loss of a latent loss of from the model of the 'father-
In the ancient world, the literal objectification of the father model - was transformed into the father of all and any, and fathers in those early days were violent
This antremorphic transfernce , survived the social evolution through the clearing of the anomalous structural conflation between the older and the newer model of the anologous structural difference between father and son;
and the ’ holy spirit’ or the evolved conscious difference between them an anthropological difference.
Love between man and god had to reflect this difference through surmountable ways of accountability, hence the sinful father’s selfish need to project and punish his son for his own sins - reflected the new found love that masquaraded for a deeper level of relationship that grew between them
That grand illusion was a logical outgrowth and not at all regrettable or sinful.
It showed that essentially fears of dependency can be overcome by a more responsible society for the welfare of new generations to come ,a more humane social networking.
This was essential at a time when old politically defined social networking were falling apart in the then world’s guarantees for responsible social reality’s excercise- shifted the individual.
Real fathers, powerless in the course, embraced the coming of the new found grandly projected sacrafice of a great master who turned political affibility into mystically absolute guarentees.
That this was an essential act, there can not be doubt.
And this enhances not diminishes the glorious intercession of the highest potential of a transfigured man.
That man resolved the identificational crisis that arose suddenly between the political and religious perimeters at that time.
A renewal of that crisis is evident in the rise of the sleeping dragon, now, a latency exhibited, now awoke to the many holes incipient in many a dynasties lack of Western conscious participation .
The West, in the middle of it, of ages past, politically repressed prior to the loss of faith in a Sun-King.
In addition the failure of political stasis reduces to identity politics, when internal control mechanisms are projected outward, linking it to a demand for security .
Buddhism is more viable since it has no definable break point between the inner and outer self’s autonomous focus on inner control. Most of it has been reified long ago.
The political control of the Chinese hierarchy does not clash with either the Capitalistic notion of the self made man, nor of the socialistic model inherent in uniformity of identifiable ‘struggles’
Here in the West, there is that conflation which makes superstars in the art of establishing hidden perimetets
And lastly, if the retro projection of god to man would imply sin, then God would be the guilty one of allowing the Sim of crucifiction yo become an architypical model for man’s consciance part of conscious manifestation (projection invrsion)
Since god can not be thus defined, Man must be guilty of not setting g the inversion right, and the fall must logically manifest in man’s disobediance
Therefore the literal interprton of the Creation must be a grand illusion, which only God can understand. He absorbed this now delusion , skipping the overwhelming goodness of the said Creation, by sustaining the eternal regeneration behind this ,so that succeeding generations can see through the 'sin of Redemption.
Interesting notions, if I understand it, but we can never really prove you are correct without historians arguing for eons to confirm all the aspects you have included.
That is partly why I focused on the morality aspect as then we might have an end game and definitive answer.
Regards
DL