The Sad Story of Job's Children

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 63
#31
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Why is God immoral for not observing your personal moral code?
I would say the character is immoral for having a moral code for itself, one that claims to be universal and never wrong and timeless and unwaivering, but something totally different, and punishable by eternal torture, for its creations. Let's say, I decide I don't like my neighbors, and I find out they're not Christians, and I pray on it, and in the night, a voice comes into my head and says "I am god, I tell you to go burn their house down in my name if you want them to leave." So I do! He told me to do it, I can't disobey god! Uh-oh...two people in there died, and I'm arrested. Tried for first degree murder, and executed, the whole time saying "I'm not apologizing for it, god ordered me to do it, you don't understand." I'm completely remorseless, and as it's a divine order, it can't be a sin, right? So I get to heaven, and I'm facing my final judgement, and whattaya know, he's like "You killed two people, which violates the moral code I sent down." Wait a minute, what? You told me to do it, number one, and number two, you do it all over the bible, I figured this was one of those times like the genocides you order people to commit there! I only killed two people, you could argue by accident, how many Amalakites did you want dead on purpose? Wait, didn't you basically wipe out the entire planet including babies? 

The question is why is something that we all objectively agree is an immoral act, like a genocide, okay if the character who's supposed to be all goodness and morality's source does it? Why are we so confused? Shouldn't the universal moral law giver be subject to his own universal moral law? Why not? Or do humans have the whole "don't do genocides" question wrong? 

#32
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
The Truth establishes The Law.

How ridiculous to think that The Truth is subject to The Law He established!

#33
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
So you're saying that any action taken by god is moral?
#34
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
Naturally. It is even God's love for us that gives us the ability to reject Him.

But how could you?

That is the source of evil in the world.
#35
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
Is it accusatory if it's a direct story from the book though? 

And you're basically advocating that the universal moral code is not universal. It'd be like if the law applied to everyone except the president who signed the laws. 



#36
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
That is the source of evil in the world.

Actually according to what you just said, god built this feature in knowing it would create evil. So, that's actually moral, which makes me wonder why it's evil at all. How's something evil AND moral at the same time?
#37
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
Your ideas about morality have very little to dk with how we actually understand morality.


Morality to us has everything to do with our relationship with God. It has nothing to do with a "universal code".

God is incapable of doing evil, because God is the essence of goodness itself. Morality is for people, not God. God's will is law.

#38
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
Morality to us has everything to do with our relationship with God. It has nothing to do with a "universal code".

Morality as I understand it is about judging actions or decisions on what's 'right or wrong.' Not about Jesus. This is what I call Ultimate Morality. It applies to all possible things at all possible times forever. To say that Ultimate Morality doesn't somehow apply to god is delusional on its face. This is what we Ludofl3xes call morality, and anyone not calling morality the same is wrong. The only thing expented from the Ultimate Morality is Ultimate Morality. You simply don't understand it.

Thank you for at least answering the question, no matter what god does that's the new definition of morality. What I don't get is how you think the soviets slaughtering people of your church was immoral, and the hebrews slaughtering the amalekites was moral. 
#39
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
Right and wrong.


Right as in correct and true.

Wrong as in false and incorrect.

It has everything to with The Ultimate Reality and The Way. In other words, God and Jesus Christ.


It is patently ridiculous to accuse The Truth of being wrong.
#40
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x

What I don't get is how you think the soviets slaughtering people of your church was immoral, and the hebrews slaughtering the amalekites was moral.

Christians don't sacrifice children, spread disease through sexual immorality, and oppress the poor. To do so is certainly unchristian. There is no good reason to persecute Christianity.

#41
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
Christians don't sacrifice children, spread disease through sexual immorality, and oppress the poor. To do so is certainly unchristian. There is no good reason to persecute Christianity.

I'm pretty sure there's plenty of data that contradicts the first sentence (for example, one of my best friends got the clap from a born again Christian girl in college), but it sounds like you're probably just going to "No True Scotsman" that away.

I agree, there's no good reason to persecute Christianity. This means there are genocides, in your opinion, with good reasons behind them. Can you tell me one that isn't in the bible? Alternatively, what was the good reasons the Amalekites had to be brutally murdered, women and hcildren and livestock included, by Hebrews and not just deleted or modified by god to please him?
#42
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
Self declaration is not proof of identity. If someone claims to be a pascifist, but goes around beating people up, how does this reflect on pascifism? It doesn't, because the on le claiming to be a pascifist is not a pacifist.
#43
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
Self declaration is not proof of identity.

Nothing if not predictable, partner. 
#44
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
If a Christian does not follow the commands of Jesus, it is their deviation from Christianity that is the problem, not Christianity. That is why your reasoning is faulty.
#45
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
This means there are genocides, in your opinion, with good reasons behind them. Can you tell me one that isn't in the bible? Alternatively, what was the good reasons the Amalekites had to be brutally murdered, women and hcildren and livestock included, by Hebrews and not just deleted or modified by god to please him?

Please give it a go. 
#46
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@ludofl3x
What matters is that the church doesn't advocate genocide.
And also that isn't the subject of this thread.


#47
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Wouldn't it be better to just post the section of the CoC where one must leave a thread when you request it?

So you are aware of that then. It states when "continually asked to leave a thread".
Listen closely. You will never control me. I would bold the never, but your lame threads have enough bolding already.

Your argument is that you find God's action personally abhorrent. I'm asking you, so what? 

Hahahahhahahahhahahahhah And that is your fkn defense is it ??
No. That is just another of my questions you're dodging. Questions cannot be defenses.

I have asked why is life so cheap to this god? 
You have not shown that life is cheap to this God. You have only posted your ignorant opinion. Further, you have not answered a single question of mine, where do you get off talking about unanswered questions?

You will be asking me next who am I to question your god. 
My God, unlike you, answers questions.

Ted Bundy murdered over 30 women and children also for no reason.. 
Ted Bundy had a reason.

...are we supposed to say "so what"?
If it was asked me "so what?" I'd be able to answer. Why can't you?

You actually post the question 4 times and still dodge answering it by hiding behind the crazy cackle.

As I said, you want us, by faith, to take your personal judgment of God as objective morality without debate. You want us to simply assume you are right sans argument.

You are so empty, you can't even answer the question, "so what?"

You say God does not observe your personal moral code. So what?

Bwaahahahaha!!!
Is that your logical answer then?
#48
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
This story is a fine test subject for the question "If god does it, is it moral?" that so few theists really have an appetite for.
Yet every theist in this thread has addressed that question, and the atheist OP is dodging. How do you explain that?

If you change the names to Satan, God and Job, suddenly you have a number of people, like Ethan, who seem to say no, this is totally fine, God's doing it, and he's got an even BETTER moral code than you. 
If your position is so strong, why do you always substitute your paraphrase of my argument to the readers as mine instead of debating me?

You will pretend you're doing running commentary and then later say, as you again do here, that few theists really have an appetite for it.

Has Mopac, EtrnlVw, PGA2.0 or I ever shied away from you or this argument? Your perception is not reality.

I don't expect any to do so here based on what I've read.
And once again your perception will confirm your bias. There is a term for that.

To me they're characters worthy of analysis
Yet when we call your bluff and accept analysis, you begin cackling like donkeys.

Why is God immoral for not observing your personal moral code?

I would say the character is immoral for having a moral code for itself, one that claims to be universal and never wrong and timeless and unwaivering, but something totally different, and punishable by eternal torture, for its creations. 
How is that immoral? I had a different moral code for my daughter than I did for me because my daughter and I were not the same. How come you can understand that in normal life but act clueless when it comes to God?

Your implication is that God should be subject to the same laws as you. Why? It makes no sense.

A citizen in France is subject to different laws than you. A husband is subject to different laws than you. An adult is subject to different laws than a child. Please tell me you understand the simple concept that the morality of an action is affected by who a person is.

Let's start by agreeing on how the morality of an act is to be determined. I will present my argument in stages, you can ask questions or rebut, and we will not progress to the next stage till we both  agree.

Does that sound fair?
#49
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
A citizen in France is subject to different laws than you. A husband is subject to different laws than you. An adult is subject to different laws than a child. Please tell me you understand the simple concept that the morality of an action is affected by who a person is.
<br>
You're conflating a legal argument with a moral argument, they're not the same. It's never moral at any age to torture an animal, for example. Is it ever moral to drown a newborn? It's never moral to commit a genocide, can we agree on that? It might have been legal for the lord of a feudal land to claim the right to sexual conquest of any woman who was getting married on his land before her husband could, against her will. It was LEGAL. Was it MORAL? 

. I will present my argument in stages, you can ask questions or rebut, and we will not progress to the next stage till we both  agree.

Feel free.
#50
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
You're conflating a legal argument with a moral argument, they're not the same.
No I'm not. I'm saying we need to start out by agreeing to a standard of how we determine whether an action is moral or not.

You want us to simply decide this or that action is moral, and this or that action is not. No. Let's agree on how we decided that, and only then, judge actions.

It's never moral at any age to torture an animal, for example.
Are you saying there is an objective morality? Is a two year old immoral for torturing an animal? Can a two year understand the concept required to be charged with immorality?

Is it ever moral to drown a newborn?
You want us to jump to judging moral actions when we have not agreed on a system of deciding what is moral and what is not.

It's never moral to commit a genocide, can we agree on that?
Not yet. Yes, we agree that genocide is immoral, but how do you decide an action is genocide?

Feel free
Not good enough. Do you agree we first decide together how to determine whether an action is moral or not? If you aren't going to go through the process with me, we are only going to state what we see as moral or immoral and never come to an understanding on what morality even is.

Let me give you an example. 

Ludo and Eth do a math problem, 8+4=?. Both of them answer 12

The teacher then asks Ludo, why did you answer 12 Ludo? And Ludo says, "Because when I subtract either 8 or 4 from 12, I get the other number in the equation."

Then the teacher asked Eth the same question, and he answers, "Because 12 is my lucky number."

Both Eth and Ludo answered 12, the "correct" answer, but Eth obviously has no clue of what addition is.

So it is with morality. Anyone can say genocide is immoral, but how did you decide that an action is genocide? There are people who call the allies fight against Hitler's Germany a genocide, and want to put Winston Churchill in prison. I don't think such people have a clue of what morality is.

So, will you work with me on figuring out when actions are moral? If not, then have a nice day.
#51
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
So, will you work with me on figuring out when actions are moral?

I already said feel free. 

No I'm not.
So you didn;t SAY this in post 48?

A citizen in France is subject to different laws than you. A husband is subject to different laws than you. An adult is subject to different laws than a child.
Laws =/= morality. These are referring to laws. You and your daughter's differences are not morals, either. Those are called RULES. Not morals. The former may be undergirded by the latter, but the latter is not dependent on the former. A two year old toruting an animal is indeed still immoral. Torture is done on purpose. Accidentally stepping on a dog's paw is something you wouldn't admonish a child for. Intentionally stomping on the same dog's paw is immoral and you'd admonish the child as such. I'd love to see the people who've told you the Germans were victims of genocide, when there were no orders to kill them to the last living being and all their livestock too. 
#52
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
I already said feel free. 
I always feel free. I need a voiced affirmative. You say X is immoral, I say X is not. So what?

We can uselessly continue slapping "moral" or "immoral" on individual actions, or we can work out a formula to determine when an action is moral.

Final time. Do you agree to the both of us working out a way to judge the morality of actions BEFORE we start judging specific actions?

If your answer is anything other than a yes, then have a nice day.
Topic's author
#53
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,617
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
He knew it was wicked to condemn God. To do such a thing is to choose death.

And to  any person of conscience  with a family would rather die along with is children. And  I notice both you and  Ethang Popoff have avoided the question concerning Satan? As you have steered away from the blinding question of why would god need to prove anything to anyone, never mind time one that he had condemned to eat dirt for the rest of its life.

Topic's author
#54
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,617
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
I have asked why is life so cheap to this god? 
You have not shown that life is cheap to this God. 

Oh I am sorry, did you miss this>>

Job 1 New International Version (NIV)
Prologue
1 In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil. 2 He had seven sons and three daughters, 3 and he owned seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen and five hundred donkeys, and had a large number of servants. He was the greatest man among all the people of the East.
4 His sons used to hold feasts in their homes on their birthdays, and they would invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them. 5 When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would make arrangements for them to be purified. Early in the morning he would sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, “Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” This was Job’s regular custom.
6 One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”
Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.”
8 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”
9 “Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. 10 “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”
12 The Lord said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.”
Then Satan went out from the presence of the Lord.
13 One day when Job’s sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at the oldest brother’s house, 14 a messenger came to Job and said, “The oxen were plowing and the donkeys were grazing nearby, 15 and the Sabeans attacked and made off with them. They put the servants to the sword, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!”
16 While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, “The fire of God fell from the heavens and burned up the sheep and the servants, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!”
17 While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, “The Chaldeans formed three raiding parties and swept down on your camels and made off with them. They put the servants to the sword, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!”
18 While he was still speaking, yet another messenger came and said, “Your sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at the oldest brother’s house, 19 when suddenly a mighty wind swept in from the desert and struck the four corners of the house. It collapsed on them and they are dead, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!”
20 At this, Job got up and tore his robe and shaved his head. Then he fell to the ground in worship 21 and said:
“Naked I came from my mother’s womb,
    and naked I will depart.
The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away;
    may the name of the Lord be praised.”
22 In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing.
Footnotes:


Topic's author
#55
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,617
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
If you change the names to Satan, God and Job, suddenly you have a number of people, like Ethan, who seem to say no, this is totally fine, 


Indeed. This is nothing short of religious fundamentalism with a default of  " so what" and a shrug of the shoulders  when asked these embarrassing prickly questions concerning the violent actions of this god. A god, it appears that had to prove something to a lowlife belly crawling serpent that had been condemned years before to eat dirt for the rest of its life.

#56
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
I have asked why is life so cheap to this god? 
You have not shown that life is cheap to this God. 

Oh I am sorry, did you miss this>>
No. A bible passage and your personal interpretation are not the same thing.

The bible makes no argument for you genius. You must make your own.

As I told you, you seem to think posting a verse is itself an argument, it isn't.

That God considers life, which He owns, cheap, is your opinion. It is based on ignorance. That is why you can't answer questions put to you.

Dodging questions after making a charge is itself a form of dishonesty. You dodge questions because you are empty. A fraud only interested in accusations, never truth.

And I can promise you, I will point out your fakery for longer than you can dodge. Every time you post one of these fake threads, I will shine a light on your emptiness, and show everyone how vacuous your claims are, and how you can't defend them.

You might want to establish a permanent line to the mods cause you're going to be crying to them often if you think my destroying your bogus claims are attacks.
#57
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Dude, it's the internet. If you want to say something, say it. If I feel like it warrants response, I'll respond to it. I don't think you really are interested in any good faith discussion, as you didn't address the difference between morals and laws. The bottom line is very likely we agree on what is or isn't moral (NOT LEGAL) for the most part.
#58
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
I hope you have a nice day ludo.
#59
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
And  I notice both you and  Ethang Popoff have avoided the question concerning Satan? 
We're imitating you genius. Like it?
#60
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Thanks! Who'd have guessed the best way to get you to zip it was simply to tell you to make your case, irony isn't quite dead yet! Happy wednesday.