-->
@BrotherDThomas
Oh hello possibly (hopefully) insincere exception to the rule. I must admit I did forget about you.
Evidence in a religious forum
Posts
Total:
338
-->
@secularmerlin
.
secularmerlin,
I will forgive you for your error. There is absolutely NO insincerity on my part whatsoever because Jesus and I tell it like it is when referring to the JUDEO-Christian Bible, and when we do, and as shown, the Tradesecrets of this forum turn themselves into Satanic pretzels in trying to explain away the TRUE LITERAL words of the scriptures. These Bible fools will pay with Jesus' revenge upon Judgment Day, praise!
.
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Well good luck with your zealotry then. Feel free not to respond to my posts in the future.
-->
@secularmerlin
Not really a fan of the book of Job. Not only does the Yahweh kill Job's children just to test Job he also completely misses the point of why that is an unacceptable thing to do as e evidenced by the fact that he considered replacement children to be a suitable way to make up for killing the first ones. I understand it was an answer (one of many presented in the old testament) to the problem of suffering even arguably the best one since at least it isn't engaging in outright victim blaming but it isn't really a satisfying answer and it does basically excuse Job's abuser instead denying his right to even question his abuser.
Oh he absolutely torments Job just to make a point to Satan and treats Job's children as replaceable.
But it's my favorite story because it is a raw look at pain and suicidal grief, and the profound and angry questions they create in the human heart. In the course of this story, Job will essentially call God a bully, a malevolent spectator who mocks the pain of the innocent, and the enemy of hope. And I note that his attitude toward God ironically does not truly worsen until after his friends arrive and start arguing with him in God's defense. To me it reflects how God's worst representatives can often be the people who believe in him the most, however well-meaning they may be. I love when Job snaps at them "You are worthless healers, all of you! If only you would be altogether silent! For you, that would be wisdom." I also love how Job is basically shaking his fist at the sky yelling "Are you having fun fucking with me, asshole? Huh?! Face me like a man, goddamn it!"
I like the philosophical questions Job asks. Why do bad things happen to good people and good things to bad people? Why are we born only to be delivered into suffering? "Why is life given to those who long for death that does not come?" How can one be expected to have a positive relationship with a God who is unseen and silent? The story doesn't answer these questions, and I am always disappointed by the ending, where God basically shows up and says "Shut up, I'm bigger than you." But I am impressed that they are asked at all. I take the conversation between Job and his friends as the author(s) trying to explore these questions himself and reconcile them with his faith, and to that extent I think it is psychologically fascinating.
-->
@Castin
It does seem to say more about the author than the Yahweh. I agree absolutely about the ending however. It is unsatisfactory that the answer is "don't question me when I torment you!"
-->
@secularmerlin
It does seem to say more about the author than the Yahweh. I agree absolutely about the ending however. It is unsatisfactory that the answer is "don't question me when I torment you!"
Of course it is not God doing the tormenting. It is Satan. But that point does not even register in this discussion. In fact God actually limits what Satan might have done because he loved Job.
That God permits any of the suffering is the puzzling part - why does not he prevent it? And yet, when I think about it - why does not God prevent every bit of pain and suffering in the world?
Because at the end of the day - suffering occurs. And suffering is not always and ONLY a bad thing. Often it is the struggles of life that help us grow up and learn more about ourselves and about those about us.
Job's children died. Everyone dies. Did they go immediately into the presence of God, which is far better? Many people die from accidents or disasters. In this instance - it was not an act of God, but an act of Satan. Yet, forever reason, you guys just look at God and not Satan. In fact Satan does not get a bad review at all. Why is that? Is it because you are so focused on promoting the evils of God, that you forget what the actual story is about?
Job is a story that tells us that asking why is not going to resolve the issue - and even the one person who could tell you, is not obligated to tell you. In this story - it is therefore ironic that someone actually provides a reason why? And for many people such as yourselves - you will always blame God even when it is clear it was not God. And I think that is another aspect of this story which I like - because it reveals our hearts and what their real motivations are.
-->
@Tradesecret
Job's children died. Everyone dies. Did they go immediately into the presence of God, which is far better?
I think in will just address this for now. No it is not better so far as I can tell.
-->
@secularmerlin
Job's children died. Everyone dies. Did they go immediately into the presence of God, which is far better?I think in will just address this for now. No it is not better so far as I can tell.
Well, actually it does not matter whether you think it is better or not, for the people who died, in accordance with the story of the Bible, it is far better. That is the overrall picture of the Bible. Of course Job would not be thinking that - because he wants his children to be with him.
But in the context of the book and in the context of the entire bible - being in God's presence as a believer is far better than not. Of course if you are not a believer being in the presence of God would be Hell.
-->
@secularmerlin
Can you say for certain that if the U.S. had not bombed Hiroshima that Japan would not have attacked us again?Nope.
If the bombing of Hiroshima may have spared us from more attacks like Pearl Harbor (which was the intention), how can you call it immoral?
-->
@secularmerlin
by nature, he has to be moral
-->
@secularmerlin
The morality of indentured servitude, which I remain unconvinced of, is not the issue when we discuss owning people as property buying and selling them as property and passing them down to your children as property. We can discuss indentured servitude next if you like but it is a separate issue. It is though on a side note immoral to have separate standards for different groups of people as this has a tendency to create second class citizens.
It might not be for you. Maybe I'm missing part of your conversion that makes indentured servitude an exception, but in general, the accusation of slavery in the Bible embraces it all. There's still an element of ownership even if voluntary.
What is it that you're unconvinced of? That indentured servitude existed?
I might and that would be wrong of me. After all you have specifically said he did not act on these fantasies.
It's interesting that you know you would be upset, but are assuming you'd be wrong for doing so.
For clarity:
As far as lashing out, I think it would be wrong to kill your best friend. So that's not what I meant.
I think it would also be wrong to hate them. But do you think maybe you'd be justified in being angry? That maybe there's a good reason to be angry?
It's true I didn't imply them acting out. What I did state is that they unashamedly admit it. And if they continue to fantasize, it's one step away from taking action if the opportunity arises. This is one of the problems with drug, alcohol, and various addictions. Even after the patient is over the physical withdrawal symptoms, the danger is them remembering, and entertaining the past experience. When someone is entertaining something in their mind, they can't be completely against it, or they wouldn't be fantasizing it. There's something pleasurable about it in their mind. If it appears pleasant in the mind, over a period of time, the restraints break down. Plus, your friend obviously wouldn't have respect for you and your spouse if your friend thinks it's okay to fantasize over your spouse.
-->
@secularmerlin
Not really a fan of the book of Job. Not only does the Yahweh kill Job's children just to test Job he also completely misses the point of why that is an unacceptable thing to do as e evidenced by the fact that he considered replacement children to be a suitable way to make up for killing the first ones. I understand it was an answer (one of many presented in the old testament) to the problem of suffering even arguably the best one since at least it isn't engaging in outright victim blaming but it isn't really a satisfying answer and it does basically excuse Job's abuser instead denying his right to even question his abuser.
This is one of the unusual things about life.
How often have we seen people say God is (or would be if existed) evil because innocent people including children get Cancer?
Yet, we also see many cases of people claiming their Cancer (or another illness, bad circumstances)gave them strength they never had, an appreciation for things they took for granted, etc. Too often we look at someone in a bad situation, and use them as an excuse as being a victim of something we look down on (like for some people God), rather than letting the alleged victim tell us how things really are.
The question is how did Job view the incident? If Job was truly blessed, we wouldn't have much ground for argument.
-->
@RoderickSpode
If the bombing of Hiroshima may have spared us from more attacks like Pearl Harbor (which was the intention), how can you call it immoral?
Because I'm not of the opinion that two wrongs make a right or that the ends necessarily justify the means and also because melting the faces of civilians with nuclear fire and radiation just doesn't sit right with me.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
by nature, he has to be moral
And yet his actions appear to be immoral to me. I judge a person (or god) by their actions I don't judge the actions by the person (or god). If they do not behave in a way that is in accordance with my understanding of moral then I judge them immoral.
-->
@Tradesecret
Well, actually it does not matter whether you think it is better or not
Then why ask my opinion?
-->
@RoderickSpode
It might not be for you. Maybe I'm missing part of your conversion that makes indentured servitude an exception, but in general, the accusation of slavery in the Bible embraces it all. There's still an element of ownership even if voluntary.What is it that you're unconvinced of? That indentured servitude existed?
Yes indentured servitude existed in Hebrew society for other hebrews but non hebrews could be bought, sold, owned and passed down as inheritance. Two different standards existed. One for hebrews and one for everyone else. The morality of keeping indentured hebrew servants, of which I am not necessarily convinced of, aside the ownership of non hebrews is what I'm actually referring to.
It's interesting that you know you would be upset, but are assuming you'd be wrong for doing so.
I do not actually know that. Maybe I'd kiss him. I said it would depend on the context of the situation.
This is one of the unusual things about life.How often have we seen people say God is (or would be if existed) evil because innocent people including children get Cancer?Yet, we also see many cases of people claiming their Cancer (or another illness, bad circumstances)gave them strength they never had, an appreciation for things they took for granted, etc. Too often we look at someone in a bad situation, and use them as an excuse as being a victim of something we look down on (like for some people God), rather than letting the alleged victim tell us how things really are.The question is how did Job view the incident? If Job was truly blessed, we wouldn't have much ground for argument.
That we can take strength in adversity does not make cancer desirable and would not make giving someone cancer moral. After all you wouldn't want me to give you cancer. Also adversity doesn't always result in strength of character. Often it only results in death.
-->
@secularmerlin
@BrotherDThomas
secularmerlin, Discipulus_Didicit,Where in the hell have you two been?
WellI said shorthand, I admit that your blatantly satirical posts are rarely short but they still convey the same basic idea I mentioned to Tradesecret in my post.
-->
@secularmerlin
Well, actually it does not matter whether you think it is better or notThen why ask my opinion?
I did not specifically ask the question on that one point. The question was in relation to entire post - specifically as to why despite the fact that it was Satan doing the tormenting -- as to why he does not even rate a mention or one that condemns his position. The minor point which was one small aspect of part of one of my reasons which you chose to address was not I was asking anyone's opinion about. Merely quoting Paul in relation to death.
-->
@Tradesecret
From what I understand the Yahweh allowed/commanded the torment so unless the Yahweh was somehow duped by the figure the bible refers to (not necessarily the Christian notion of satan by the way) then I remain unconvinced by the argument that he bears no culpability.
-->
@secularmerlin
From what I understand the Yahweh allowed/commanded the torment so unless the Yahweh was somehow duped by the figure the bible refers to (not necessarily the Christian notion of satan by the way) then I remain unconvinced by the argument that he bears no culpability.
It was not a command. So on that there is no argument. I indicated that God permitted the torment - but I also noted that the pain and suffering that God permitted Satan to use was limited. Why limit it at all if there was no concern for Job? Secondly, Satan is identified in this passage - you still have not discussed whether he is culpable or not. Again you dodge the question. Again you direct your anger towards God. Curious?????
I do not see how culpability attached to God in this instance. I really don't. God had no intention of harming Job. God did not agree with Satan. God limited Satan's powers. God does not make it a habit of interfering in the ordinary things of life in relation to suffering. He does and has sometimes. But he is not obligated to do so. He is under no jurisdiction to do so. He is not up in heaven thinking "oh dear, I wonder if secularmerlin is watching, I had better do what he wants or else he might not believe in me".
Please explain what God's duty of care is in this situation and why. Then demonstrate how God breached it. Then explain how this breach makes him culpable. You say you remain unconvinced - well that is your prerogative - but it is my opinion that you have not actually thought it through. Prove me wrong.
-->
@Tradesecret
I indicated that God permitted the torment -
That is enough to call his moral character into question in my opinion.
Why limit it at all if there was no concern for Job?
Because he wanted to win the bet. Arbitrarily for no real reason. Budget cuts and cost overruns. His concern for Job is far from the only possible cause and also I would posit that anyone who really cared about Job would not allow him to be tormented in the first place so there is that.
-->
@Tradesecret
God had no intention of harming Job.
Only his children? But seriously boils and abject poverty are both harmful so the Yahweh's intentions aside harm was done.
-->
@secularmerlin
I indicated that God permitted the torment -That is enough to call his moral character into question in my opinion.
On what basis? I suppose the fact that God does not prevent any injustice calls into question his character as well. I think that is a weak position to hold. It certainly does not prove he had a duty of care, nor does it prove what his duty of care was, nor does it prove that he breached any such duty of care, and nor does it prove that such alleged breach demonstrates culpability. You are grasping at straws.
Why limit it at all if there was no concern for Job?Because he wanted to win the bet. Arbitrarily for no real reason. Budget cuts and cost overruns. His concern for Job is far from the only possible cause and also I would posit that anyone who really cared about Job would not allow him to be tormented in the first place so there is that.
Seriously. Is that really what you are going to sit with? He wanted to win a bet! It is not even a bet in the story. Satan was making a point and God disagreed with him. You conveniently forget that God has a much bigger view of history than you do. I suppose you can only deal with what you know - but why start with the assumption that God is evil? To me - it seems that our first point of call would be start with the assumption of good faith.
When we see people do things and their motivations it may well influence our picture of them. But here God is pictured in heaven when Satan comes to him. And Satan accuses Job of being shallow. Of being righteous only because God seems to be blessing him. God in this scenario actually vindicates Job and proves to Satan that Job has more depth than Satan wants to believe. And in the meanwhile God uses this vindication as a means of discussing suffering.
There is nothing in this story which makes God culpable. True - he might have told Satan to F off. Yet that would not vindicate Job in the eyes of Satan or those wanting to accuse God or Job of being shallow or of showing favoritism. In my view this is clearly a picture of God revealing the depths of Job's faith and true character and that his faith was not dependent upon him being blessed by God or of his circumstances.
-->
@Tradesecret
I suppose the fact that God does not prevent any injustice calls into question his character as well.
Only if he is capable of doing something and knows said injustices exist.
Is that really what you are going to sit with?
I am not proposing any particular scenario I'm just not convinced that you are correct can you demonstrate that the Yahweh was concerned for Job by any sensible definition? Because Yahwehs actions don't seem to bear this hypothesis out.
There is nothing in this story which makes God culpable. True - he might have told Satan to F off. Yet that would not vindicate Job in the eyes of Satan
Why is that an issue? Is the Yahweh not omniscient? Did he need some test to determine Job's motivation? Why is Satan's opinion in this matter important in the least? Is god not the all powerful all knowing final arbiter of Job's destiny? It seems almost like the actions of a being who does not know everything. Perhaps the god described in the bible just isn't as powerful as I have been led to believe by Christians.
-->
@secularmerlin
.
secularmerlin,
YOUR QUOTE OF MISCONCEPTION: "Well good luck with your zealotry then. Feel free not to respond to my posts in the future."
I have no option other than to be a zealot regarding the Christian faith so saith Jesus the Christ , and I don't need any luck whatsoever because I actually read the Bible and the outcome that it provides. If I respond to your posts in the future that are worthy in the name of Jesus, then you have the option not to respond to them.
.
Good point
.
TRADESECRET, The Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO, Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, and now the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark,
YOUR BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTE # 493932949858483923-6 IN YOUR LAUGHABLE POST #110: "God does not make it a habit of interfering in the ordinary things of life in relation to suffering. He does and has sometimes. But he is not obligated to do so. He is under no jurisdiction to do so."
Barring your insipid quote above, where you DO NOT give us any biblical vouchsafing to make a statement like that in the first place, therefore, as usual, your blatant Bible ignorance pervades other threads as well as your ignorance in the Noah Ark Thread! First off, you erroneously state that our serial killer Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, "does not interfere in ordinary things of life in relation to suffering," THEN YOU CONTRADICT THIS STATEMENT BY STATING; "He does and has sometimes!" LOL! Therefore, where do you actually stand upon this topic?! As expected, the pseudo-christian like you wants it both ways to try and save your further embarrassment to biblical axioms! Priceless.
Barring your insipid quote above, where you DO NOT give us any biblical vouchsafing to make a statement like that in the first place, therefore, as usual, your blatant Bible ignorance pervades other threads as well as your ignorance in the Noah Ark Thread! First off, you erroneously state that our serial killer Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, "does not interfere in ordinary things of life in relation to suffering," THEN YOU CONTRADICT THIS STATEMENT BY STATING; "He does and has sometimes!" LOL! Therefore, where do you actually stand upon this topic?! As expected, the pseudo-christian like you wants it both ways to try and save your further embarrassment to biblical axioms! Priceless.
Tradesecret, Yahweh/Jesus most certainly has interfered in the ordinary things of life relating to His Jewish creations SUFFERING, you ignorant Bible fool!
1. Jesus commanded that babies would be smashed to pieces, and their women ripped open (Hosea 13:16).
2. Jesus horrifically drowned his entire JEWISH Creation, including innocent zygotes, fetus' and babies in His Great Flood scenario. (Genesis 7)
3. Jesus brutally slays the fruit of the womb of the women in Ephraim. (Hosea 9:11-16)
4. Jesus commands the death to helpless “suckling” infants (1 Samuel 15:3).
5. Jesus is praised for slaughtering the innocent first born. (Psalms 135:8 & 136:10)
6. Jesus commands that infants should be “dashed upon the rocks.” (Psalms 137:9) Ever wonder in what that would sound like? Maybe a watermelon being dropped on a huge rock? What do you think? Huh?
7. Jesus commanded that children shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.” (Isaiah 13:15-16)
The TRUE MO of our alleged ever loving and forgiving serial killing Jesus is to sickening to continue, of which, you have yet to find your BIB BOY pants in debating me upon this subject, but to only RUN AWAY from it as continually shown. LOL! Therefore, I only listed a few examples above, of which there are MANY MORE, where Jesus in fact did interfere with His Jewish creation relative to their outright and brutal suffering!
2. Jesus horrifically drowned his entire JEWISH Creation, including innocent zygotes, fetus' and babies in His Great Flood scenario. (Genesis 7)
3. Jesus brutally slays the fruit of the womb of the women in Ephraim. (Hosea 9:11-16)
4. Jesus commands the death to helpless “suckling” infants (1 Samuel 15:3).
5. Jesus is praised for slaughtering the innocent first born. (Psalms 135:8 & 136:10)
6. Jesus commands that infants should be “dashed upon the rocks.” (Psalms 137:9) Ever wonder in what that would sound like? Maybe a watermelon being dropped on a huge rock? What do you think? Huh?
7. Jesus commanded that children shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.” (Isaiah 13:15-16)
The TRUE MO of our alleged ever loving and forgiving serial killing Jesus is to sickening to continue, of which, you have yet to find your BIB BOY pants in debating me upon this subject, but to only RUN AWAY from it as continually shown. LOL! Therefore, I only listed a few examples above, of which there are MANY MORE, where Jesus in fact did interfere with His Jewish creation relative to their outright and brutal suffering!
Tradesecret, to prevent you from being the total Bible fool all the time, isn't it about time you take a break from your adamant biblical ignorance on this forum? Either that, or maybe it's time to change the name of your moniker to save further embarrassment? OR, for you to be more comfortable with your complete unadulterated biblical ignorance, maybe its time for you to join a Christian's Children Forum! To save you time, here is a kids bible forum where you will be more at home with your Bible stupidity equal to theirs!
-->
@secularmerlin
but according to logic, he has to be good
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Good and bad are subjective terms. They are merely opinions and besides that can only be used in context to a particular standard. Saying that something is logically speaking good or bad is most generally nonsense. At the very least you would have to have well defined axioms.
-->
@secularmerlin
this is false, god does these things for GOOD PURPASES, that is what is morally good