>Omnipotent god allows satan in heaven to play along in a petty bet that he already knows the answer to>Gives approval for Satan to inflict disease and destroy a righteous man’s family just to see if he still worshipped him>Asks god why>”Who are you to judge?!”>Story is all better now because he got a new familyBe honest; had you heard this story from a pagan religion, would you pretend to be in awe and inspired by this “beautiful story” or would you recoil and call it paganistic evil
>>21296033Religious people don’t have the self awareness to answer a question like thatThe answer you’re looking for is an intellectual that practises and thinks about religion but isn’t overly haunted by itI’ve met oneAfter years of harassing people because of my own agnosticism, most Christians are low IQ borderline schizophrenic The rest just pose
>>21296033You don't know anything about G-d's plan, chud.
>>21296033>satanthere is no satan in jewish mythology as we know him in christian mythology. satan was the prosecutor(in hebrew, prosecutor is "satan") of the man. jesus was a shizo and thought that satan was after him.jews have raab and leviatan as the enemies of god, symbols of evil, chaos and sea>righteous manhe was not righteous because he didnt worship God. >He was the greatest man(K) among all the people of the East.(job 1:3
>>21296172ok you're very smart but you didn't respond to any concerns expressed in the op
>>21296033When you step back, and approach Job as a real person in the real world, (which he wasn't, his name means 'hated'), you see how obvious it is that these things DO happen to everyone, including the righteous. No one is spared the hardships of life, such as loss, disease and pain. These things are ubiquitous and unavoidable.So the book takes an elevated view. It's not asking "why do bad things happen", it's answering "how do you respond to bad things". The meat of the book is Job's friends attempting to consol him in a myriad of human ways, none of which really work out and this is pointed out, their flaws.But to address the pedantic point of "why bad thing happen", God himself comes down and talks to Job, but his answer isn't what you'd expect. He simply reminds Job that God is God and man is man, and our capacity to understand the beyond complex machinations of his plan is beyond the scope of our ability, and we accept that from the simple position of powerlessness.Did you hang the stars in the sky? Do you command the whirlwind? Were you there to lay the foundations of the earth? No? You can barely handle regular life without struggling? Then accept your spot in God's world, being beneath him and his power, and understand to fear the LORD is the smartest thing to do.Since, you know, the stars and all.
>>21296184what concerns? non jews are animals (cfr jubilees). if you take away a cow from a bull do you feel sad? i dont. should the bull judge the farmer? if you say yes, then you are crazy.
>>21296033Life is predicated on loss and entropy. Kicking and screaming at the world and abandoning your values when things get rough doesn't get you anything. When you acquiesce to forces you can't change, you will by happy, and life will work with you again. Why does Job always make brainlets seethe? It's not a complex parable.
>>21296033A lot of the OT is refutation to pagan beliefs, subverting them from paganism (serving the selfish gods-based) to Judaism (which inversely was about the need God's people have for Him & the nourishment following Him gives).
>>21296195Alternatively you can take one honest look at real life, which is not that different from Job's story in terms of absurdity, and come to the sane conclusion that God doesn't exist
>>21296195If God is inscrutable in that way, why does the book of Job itself explain why God allowed bad things to happen to Job?
>>21296033Based God doing whatever the fuck he wants because he can and because fuck you. Finite created beings hate him because they can't be him.
>>21296214I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. So you think Job is a less valid critique of life because hurr duurr god don't real?
>>21296214Yeah, I'm sure you're much smarter and more worldly than say, Augustine or Isaac Newton. Good job getting to the bottom of it.>>21296216It doesn't. God does not do that in that way. It is framed as 'you have no right to complain about that which you don't understand.' It reminds me of the idea of Gnothi Seauton, know yourself, inscribed above the temple at Delphi.It's not about having the exact answer. It's about knowing that answer came from a being unimaginably higher than yourself.
>>21296172>satan was the prosecutor(in hebrew, prosecutor is "satan")I think "adversary" is more apropos in light of how the word satan gets used in Numbers and Chronicles.
>>21296227The story and critique makes a lot more sense if you remove God from the picture. Otherwise it just ends up critiquing God. >>21296229Smartness got nothing to do with this
>>21296238Job is a story about suffering. You're inquiring into the nature of the transcendent in a story about suffering. Did you read LoTR to and ask what Aragorn's tax policy was too? Job is not going to have answers about libidinal forces that move the world. You can look up theologians like Saint Clement, Gregory of Nyssa, Saint John of Damascus, Thomas Aquinas, if that's what is holding you up.
>>21296202Spoken like a sociopath. Rebel against unfair circumstances inflicted by a real, conscious entity. If God existed and did this to you it is not only moral but your responsibility to give him the finger.
>>21296256I think the misunderstanding stems from your limited perception of God as being 'some guy' who authors life and reality like a writer or engineer. Flipping the finger to god is the same as shouting at the sun for being too hot. Job understood this.
>>21296263Love and omnipotence can't be reconciled in a universe ruled by fear and suffering. You're retarded and don't even understand what you're defending. The Jewish God is not some abstract, impersonal One.
>>21296263The misunderstanding comes from giving God a voice and reason. If you want to pose this entity as a force, don't make it communicable. If it is communicable, use every spark of life in your body to rebel for the sake of progress or at least so someone else doesn't suffer at the hands of this piece of shit.
>>21296249You can't make your story on suffering independent of your metaphysics if tye bery concept depends on those foundations.
>>21296263>the same as shouting at the sun for being too hotBut when the sun is too hot you don't stand beneath it all day, instead you hide inside your air conditioned home. You can't change the sun, but you can change your immediate surroundings.
>>21296265The point of the thread was Job, and the answer was that suffering passes you over when you acquiesce to it instead of shaking your fist at the clouds. You're only response to that is that 'well god dont real' and a pivot into the 'cant be all good and all powerful'. And again, this is answered in Saint Clement, Gregory of Nyssa etc etc. >>21296275Yes this is absolutely correct. >>21296267This is too.
>>21296269>You can't write LoTR without describing Aragon's tax policy.
>>21296290It isn't, all Christian theodicies are bunk, the only value Job has its gnostic kernel. Don't @ me with privatio boni.
>>21296290You're the one pivoting if you have to refer to Christian theologians
>>21296293If you wanted to convey with that analogy that your iq peaked at 96 when you were 20 then you've succeeded
>>21296033Being faithful does not guarantee earthly success or escape from suffering. Instead it gives you the means to spiritually overcome pain and disaster Quite literally the opposite of other religions where it was all transactional, like an in-game shop was opened up by your favourite heathen god
>>21296229>It doesn't. God does not do that in that way. It is framed as 'you have no right to complain about that which you don't understand.'I was referring to the opening and closing prose portions of Job. They clearly spell out that God had a wager with the satan which lead to him allowing Job to suffer.
>>21296297Because you changed to subject something other than Job, a parable about suffering, to the metaphysics of love and omnipotence -- which Job is not about at all?
>>21296331Maybe it was a JobJob reference all along
>>21296311Yahweh literally says that Job did nothing wrong, though.
>>21296202>>21296263Yes? "Forces" rather than "guys" are the supreme Evil, and rejecting them is a Moral obligation.
>>21296256God didn't do it to him though.
>>21296033>Satan goes about the world and approaches God to challenge him about His creation>God offers to Satan that Job exemplifies what is best about it>Satan says it's a false example because Job has every reason to praise the creation>God allows Satan to remove these things to show that, even then, the creation is Good and Job, though now contemplating the challanges of utter despair (which is the point of the story), will still remain exemplaryWhy are atheists so filtered by this? They literally read it as God placing a bet to torment someone (which is disingenuous) and it's as if they read the first 4% of it and conviently ignore any deeper meaning in the story (e.g. right at the beginning you have Job's friends offering him wisdom and building the actual theme of the book).
>>21296033It's subtle but it's clear all of Job family is saved because they are dining with "their oldest brother," i.e. your anslysis is wrong.
Anybody still taking the bible seriously nowadays is the actual retard.
>>21296033Loyalty and faith/hope are virtues no matter in what sphere they manifest.
>>21298023Easy there, Chang.
>>21296202>Why does Job always make brainlets seetheBecause all brainlets know how to do is seethe. They're too wrapped up in over inflated egos. Because they're not God they say there's no God like little bitches. I feel for the hylics, I really do.
>>21296217>Finite created beings hate him because they can't be him.Haha yeah bro. Just had the same thought. See above.
>>21296033If you believe in an afterlife, you believe that Job's family was not destroyed. They went to heaven.
>>21296033>Be honest; had you heard this story from a pagan religion, would you pretend to be in awe and inspired by this “beautiful story” or would you recoil and call it paganistic evilPagan culture unfortunately never produced anything of this depthif you actually read the book of Job, basically the guy goes from having a good life to his life falling apart. This happens to people all the time. After his life falls apart, his friends get in a circle and shit talk him. Saying it's his fault for his random sufferings. This is also typical because people would rather scapegoat than be helpful in times of hardship. At the end of the dialogue, things work out OK and Job is rewarded for keeping the faith through his hardship. The book is sort of a dialogue of Theodicy which looks at how evil can bring about the highest good in the end. Dunno why people struggle with this book, they've prob never read it.
>>21296033I heard similar stories coming from secular people or people from other religions, and I always found them edifying. They always comforted me and filled me with hope, and they have the exact same effect on billions of people all over the world.Idk, maybe you are the problem. Think about it
>>21298294Based. Fedoracucks can seethe forever.
>>21298294>might makes rightCringe
>>21298625>(al)might(y) makes rightCope.
>>21298649William of Ockham is burning in hell
>>21296046>After years of harassing people because of my own agnosticism, most Christians are low IQ borderline schizophrenic>The rest just poseLmao this has been my exact experience. The posers tend to be brighter, but don't look too deeply because doing so often results in their entire social life they grew up with being completely train-wrecked.
>>21296227>hurr duurr god don't realStop talking like that
>>21296195>The Book of Job is cosmic horror before we had a name for the genre
>>21298294Why instead of writing cute poetry can't god just explain it lol
>>21296033They don't want to admit this is a 'pagan' story, and monotheism is not a real religion. Religion is polytheistic.
>>21296033Q is.. oh-uh God is in control...
>>21298294cringe. the spirit of job's cringe friends haunt every last job thread on the internet
>>21298358>The book is sort of a dialogue of Theodicy which looks at how evil can bring about the highest good in the end.cringe little bug. Child rape is justified by Bach, bro!! faggot
>if I feel bad that means god isn't realIf I was an atheist I would kill myself
>>21299021Seething little sporangium. You can't declare that your God is the coincidence of love and child murder and then act like some snarky reddit faggot when you get called out on it
>>21299021Your God's hallowed creation has both children and pedophilia written into the same code LMFAO. And you have the gall to wag your finger at Job like his cuck faggot friends.
>>21299034>I feel bad!
>>21299039It's actually others that feel bad, I feel fine, kill yourself shitwit
>>21299021>if I feel bad that means god isn't realThat's a perfectly valid line of reasoning. If God is real and good he can make the bad feels go away.
>>21296033>>21296046I'm getting tired of /lit/newbs thinking this is a profound thread. We just had this thread (for the millionth time) a few weeks ago, and it stayed up for awhile. Dig it up if you want more serious answers out of me than I'm about to give. In any case, you, like every emotionally reactant athiest is not thinking through the situation before judging it. First of all, you have to actually consider who God is. >He is omniscient (i.e. he knows every player in this story inside out - ancestrally, genetically (not the same thing), emotionally, financially, and in every other possible way.; therefore he knows precisely how they will respond to this. There is no bet happening in the truest sense. This is a lesson unfolding, not a bet.)>Second, Job goes to heaven. His family goes to heaven. His new family goes to heaven. The suffering endured here is a tiny, infitessimally small blip in a perfect eternal picture which lasts forever. Ultimately, Job took with him far more than he came in with, and lost nothing - save his wife, who was apparently unworthy of his level of faith, and left of her own accord. Am I saying this is the definitive way to look at the book of Job? No. But if you're going to judge God based on scripture, you have to consider who He is, based on Scripture. >He is Just>He is Righteous Altogether>He is Love>He is Faithful>He is Longsuffering>He is Merciful>He is a ton of different things, all of which point to one possibility alone in this story - His heart is for Job's best. Expecting the divine perspective of an omniscient, omnipotent creator to make sense to a temporaly bound modern man, who can't even fathom what daily life was really like for Job, is just absurd. God IS the God of Job. Not yesterday, not tomorrow, but He has been since that day, until this very day! Job is not up in Heaven sobbing. Anyway, just try and actually frame your perspective from a Biblical lens, or you aren't even being critical in a serious way. Besides, who are you to judge?? I, a man, wouldn't hear or accept your judgements of me on a whim, so should your All-Powerful Creator who knows everything about you and every person in your entire geneline - past, present, and future? Would you take the criticisms of a 8 year old with 40IQ? This is a far more extreme situation than that. >>21296172>in avoiding the revelation of Messiah you've become literally BabylonianWow. And shame on you, for attempting to deflect rather than to defend the honor of the Living God! You bent like grass a breeze, when you should have been more like Elihu. >>21296184These attitudes just fuel antisemitism, and are just as braindead, as the Nazi worldview. Take your meds.
>>21299087>Well, if I made existence I'd make the following improvements...t. filtered by Job
>>21296184Didn't mean to tag you here >>21299106meant to tag >>21296198
>>21299109Nice rebuttal, coward. Your mother's skirts must be quite comfortable.
>>21299126Continue hiding if you must. You haven't even convinced yourself.
>>21299106>Anyway, just try and actually frame your perspective from a Biblical lens, or you aren't even being critical in a serious way.Yes, yes - as a mathematician, I am very aware of the logical ailment throughout history of>take as axiom that my conclusion follows from the axiomsYou are right, that in the very specific construction of the bible, god cannot be wrong and is always loving. Therefore, your description of Job's suffering as Actually An Act of Mercy And Love The Whole Time™ is completely true. That is the axiomatic construction of the Christian faith - god cannot be wrong, cannot do evil, and loves always. You accept those as axioms, so you can automatically preclude every argument against them.But the people raising the question are not of Christian faith and have not accepted these as axioms. The analysis is not about whether a statement proceeds from the axioms or contradicts them - it is about what the axioms themselves are valid. Atheists argue they are not.To, essentially, quote you: just try an actually frame your perspective from the lens of the discussion at hand instead of the one you'd like to be having so you can be rightIt won't matter, because that path has been walked a mile deep into the Earth and we've already got the answer - in order to accept any religion as true, you must non-critically accept the tenets of the faith as axiom. If you don't non-critically accept the faith as axiom, you won't ever be religious. It's that simple.
>>21299114>Well, if I made existence I'd make the following improvements...Its just that simple. If I can think of these improvements then God certainly can
>>21299106>>21299150Both are excellent responses
>>21296033It's funny to see because a Christian you would want to be Job in the sense that you are God's favorite follower
>>21299150I'm the one responded to, and I actually agree with you. Frankly, I'm flabbergasted to get hit with a cool-headed reply. It's uncommon here, and even more so on the topic of God. God bless you for it. Indeed, without faith, every man may take it as fable, and feel about it however he does. I encourage any and everyman to simply seek God out for Himself with an earnest desire. You won't be lacking faith long. I wasn't always the Christian guy doing my best to chastise the faithless on the net (for their benefit, lol). There was a time before I knew Christ, and if you'd asked me the day before I met Him, I would have told you Christians were nuts. Anyway, God bless you again, anon. You're a cool drink of water in this often infernal place.
>>21299106>Expecting the General Secretary perspective of an omniscient, omnipotent Stalin to make sense to a temporaly bound modern peasant, who can't even fathom what daily life was really like for a man in the gulag, is just absurd. Stalin IS the General Secretary of the man in the gulag. Not yesterday, not tomorrow, but He has been since that day, until this very day! The man in the gulag is not up in America sobbing. Anyway, just try and actually frame your perspective from a Communist lens, or you aren't even being critical in a serious way.
>>21297989Totally fictional chain of events. The first question between God and Satan is asked by God. Job is first mentioned by God.
>>21299251Can thou industrialize Russia?
>>21299150I did want to say one small other thing, just for clarity. My response isn't really about "being right." It's more, I get the impression from threads like these that Christians are being judged on the basis of our belief in a God, who would do these things to Job, and my answer is: well, you have to consider what we actually believe about that God. I would characterize what you're saying as, "But can we actually believe those things about God?" Which would then tie into what I before, about seeking Him earnestly, and otherwise agreeing with you. I just realized I may not have been clear about that.
>>21299250>Totally fictional chain of events.It's literally what happens. >The first question between God and Satan is asked by God.Yeah, it's basically "what have you been up to?" (which you can read in line with the idea Satan is intruding) and Satan answers that he has been travelling through the creation. >Job is first mentioned by God.Never said he wasn't. God brings up Job because he's exemplary of what is Good. Satan shows up and tells God he has been surveying God's work.The rest of what was said in that post is true as well. The story isn't God placing a bet with Satan to torment Job--Satan challanges God that Job is only exemplary because he has been blessed (with wealth/family). God allows for Job to be utterly reduced to a diseased man sitting in the ashes; that which Satan says is Good and the reason for Job's piety is absent. However, Job maintains his humility (despite his wife telling him to curse God and his friends pontifications about the nature of suffering being just) and the end loops back to the opening: Job was making offerings for the sins of his children, God tells Job's friends they have to make offerings through Job as he is the intercessor.The idea that the story is about God gambling with Satan to cause needless suffering is reductive fedora-tipper nonsense. Basically, you're assuming the role of Satan (not even Job's misguided friends but you'd probably do yourself well to engage with their dialogues) and saying "God is evil" while ignoring the point of the story is the sublime nature of God (and His creation) in relation to man and that Good still exists when that which Satan marks as priviledged is absent. The point is no one is in the position to curse existence (even though Job longs for death due to his despair) and there's more to it than wealth and what we perceive as the equitable distribution of such.
>>21299363you're such a smarmy gay little faggot. just say might is right and be done with it. I will curse an omnipotent god of love for being coincident with suffering, fear, degradation, predation, evil, horror, and despair. simple as. kill yourself.
>>21299363>One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. 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.”>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.”Compare with: >>21297989Satan does not "approach God". Satan does not "challenge" God. God proactively summons Satan. God proactively brings up Job, as a challenge, if you will.
>>21296033Ancient men though very differently from us now. They might as well be humanoid aliens to us, their culture and thought procedures are indeed alien. You have to immerse yourselves for years, with tutors and commentary - the Classics, the Biblical Studies, Ancient Chinese Studies, Egyptians Studies, etc - to approximate their point of view. Also need to have a developed historical imagination, that means been able to imagine and model behavior of alien cultures likes a good sci-fi author does with a Bloodsucker Octopus from Delta Pavonis (because a bad one will make them either Perfidious Anglo or Noble Negro in disguise, see Space Pocahontas of Cameron's Avatar).The Book of Job was written for Iron Age Jews, not for Info Overload Age Globalese.You have to ponder for a week on an Iron Age Semitic tribal worldview as edited by Late Antiquity Globalese Jew in Alexandria or Babylon 500+ years after the fact, his personal Slave morality and relations to Authority, his personal ideas of Worship and meaningful life.Or read a commentary from a Bible Scholar who wasted 10+ years learning Ancient Hebrew culture to write A Book on A Book of Job you won't even notice.
>>21299402Here's the text. Nothing about my presentation of the story is incorrect and I find it interesting you're hung up on that instead of discussing it's thematic content. Satan appears before God among his angels (i.e. he is an outsider among the group). You can argue that God is omnipotent and thus made Satan appear--the point is you're splitting hairs. When God inquires of him, Satan states that he has been surveying God's creation (since he's "The Adversary" it's perfectly reasonable to intuit his vision of creation is in judgement, which is also one of the key themes developed within the narrative). Yes, God brings up Job but this is for the sake of asserting his piety--this is where Satan challanges God. The narrative itself presents Satan's words as a challange (i.e. he's pious because you have blessed him with that which is good on earth and when it's taken away he will not only reject these ways but will curse you). Again, God is omninpotent but if the narrative were simply Him saying "Naw, he good" there wouldn't be very much insight. Instead, Job is brought low and his friends pontificate on the nature of divine will and reduce it in an attempt to console him (and anyone can put themselves in that place and see themselves doing the same thing). Job listens but rejects them and instead accepts that he can't understand the sublime; but also refuses to curse God/creation (although he does long for death). God speaks but he doesn't answer according to the logic presented by Job's friends--he presents rhetorical questions that evoke the gravity of His sublime nature and existence as His will. You might not like it but the point of the story is that He doesn't owe you an answer and your ability to rationalize the complexity of all creation is inherently limited (FYI: this is probably why atheists hate the story). So no, the point of the story isn't that God decides to make a bet with Satan in order to torment Job. The point of the story is the sublime nature of God and His will; Satan's challange, that a comfortable life and earthly justice is what leads to piety, fails.
>>21299521Does the text contradict: 1. That God proactively summons Satan?2. That God proactively brings up Job?3. That God proactively treats Job preferentially?4. That God proactively tortures Job?
>>21299572>1. That God proactively summons Satan?Yes. Satan "also came along.">2. That God proactively brings up Job?I never denied that God brings up Job. I asserted that he did so in relation to the fact Satan was surveying God's work and Job is exemplary of it being Good (e.g. he "shuns evil").>3. That God proactively treats Job preferentially?Yes. The text doesn't say why Job is blessed. It's also pretty important that God doesn't offer an explaination as to why some are blessed and others are not even though this question is raised/entertained in the dialogues. The closest thing to that we get is Job becoming the intercessor (but it's at the very end of the story).>4. That God proactively tortures Job?Yes. Satan tortures Job (and God restricts how far he can go).Again, I find it interesting that you're hung up on the particulars of the narrative instead of the thematic content of the story. Literalism is the low-hanging fruit which athiests usually project onto the religious. I'll also say again that you can assert that God is omnipotent and therefore everything in the story is His cause. I'd accept that it's one part of the story but it's a superficial take in terms of what the narrative is actually expressing. The point of the narrative isn't God making a bet with Satan in order to torture Job; the point of the narrative is the sublime nature of God's will, that creation is beyond the ability to rationalize, and that Satan's challenge relating to God's exemplar only being an exemplar because he is blessed and has a sense of earthly/temporal justice.
>>21299640All of your points are totally ideological, even absurd. How does "and Satan also came among them" contradict the fact that he was proactively summoned by God? If anything, it pertains to the Angel-Satan distinction, not to the proactive-reactive one. How can a proactive statement, such as God's first mention of Job, be "in relation" to anything? How can the text not mentioning the reason for Job preferential treatment be anything but a confirmation of the fact that it is nothing but PROACTIVE, i.e. it has no reason? How can Satan torture Job if God is omnipotent, what distinguishes the "restriction" from a figurative condom worn by God? MOREOVER, these are NOT "particulars", they are the PRINCIPLES of the text, upon which the whole text is based, to which the whole text is reduced to, beyond which the whole text has no meaning.
>>21299692>All of your points are totally ideological, even absurdThey're not. It's what happens in the story as supported by textual evidence. Also, you're being extremely disingenuous in continuously reasserting your arguments while completely ignoring my answers to your questions and explaination of the text.>How does "and Satan also came among them" contradict the fact that he was proactively summoned by God?The text doesn't say that Satan was summoned by God and it certainly doesn't say it was done for the express purpose of torturing Job. Why not just complain that God asks Satan where he has been instead of just knowing it because He's God? It's a narrative.>How can a proactive statement, such as God's first mention of Job, be "in relation" to anything?Because it's in response to Satan's statement that he has been surveying God's creation.>How can the text not mentioning the reason for Job preferential treatment be anything but a confirmation of the fact that it is nothing but PROACTIVE, i.e. it has no reasonProactive doesn't mean it has no reason. Proactive means taking the initiative and Job is brought up as an exemplary of the Good which Satan has surveyed. Also, I pointed out to you that the notion of preferential treatment is contradictory to the story. In the text, Job's friends attempt to rationalize Job's afflictions according to their interpritation of justice. It's notable that God doesn't rationalize His will within these terms and speaks rhetorically about His sublime nature at the end (which underscores the theme/point of the story).>How can Satan torture Job if God is omnipotentI've pointed this out in my previous posts and why it's an unnecessary detour that runs contrary to the central idea of the book. The point of the story is that God's nature is sublime, His will/creation cannot be fathomed our limited human ability (rationalization), and that Satan's challenge that Job is only Good because he has temporal/material benefits and is thusly imbued with a sense of (earthly) justice fails. From an agnostic perspective you can forward that as no one has the ability to know everything and our existence is inherently mysterious; there is more to existence than what we ourselves construct/"understand." The book is about our limitations.>what distinguishes the "restriction" from a figurative condom worn by God?Well, you said that God tortures Job and asked me if the text contradicts that. It does. Satan tortures Job (and God restricts what he can do, ergo he is literally not the one personally afflicting Job). It's important not because it renders God away from what happens to Job (I've mentioned his omnipotency at every turn) but that it is Satan (The Adversary) doing everything he can to assert his challenge. It also esculates in that Job himself is spared torment initially and Satan comes back to assert that he still has his health Job hasn't truly been laid as low as possible.1/2
>>21296033Did you even read the story?
>>21299792>>what distinguishes the "restriction" from a figurative condom worn by God?However, even when this is taken from him Job does not curse God. This underscores that Satan's interpritation that wealth/earthly justice is what leads to piety is false.>MOREOVER, these are NOT "particulars", they are the PRINCIPLES of the text, upon which the whole text is based, to which the whole text is reduced to, beyond which the whole text has no meaning.Seeing as how you've sqabbled over plot points and instead of addressing the themes of the text, I don't really see how you're in the position to assert that (especially when you've completely ignored what I've explained to you so far). Like I said, the point of the story isn't God wagering with Satan toward the ends of torturing Job. The point of the story is the sublime nature of God, our inability to rationalize His will or assert the nature of all existence according to our limited means, and that Satan's challenge that piety comes from material advantages and a firm sense of earthly justice fails. Agnostically: existence is sublime, we can't explain the nature of the sublime according to our cognitive tools, and you can do what is right thing and still end up in a bad place (and that doesn't mean you did the wrong thing).
>>21299814>https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunchingSounds like he read Dawkins.
>>21299792Don't bother posting the second part. You are a cretin. The text says that the Angels, a category in which Satan is also included, "came to present themselves before the Lord". Could they have willfully done this? No. Per the text, the first mention of Job comes out of God's, not Satan's mouth, irrespective of what comes or comes not out of the latter's mouth, the premise that God answers to Satan being an obscenity, regardless. Your third point is incoherent, one cannot "take the initiative" in relation or response to something. Your fourth point is word salad. The only coherent statement, "Satan tortures Job (and God restricts what he can do, ergo he is literally not the one personally afflicting Job)", is still wrong since if God would likewise totally restrict Satan then God would be responsible for Job's non-torture, and if God would likewise totally permit Satan then God would be responsible for Job's total torture, just as he is responsible for partially restricting Satan, therefore being responsible for Job's partial torture. Stop replying. Fuck you.
>>21299848>Don't bother posting the second part. You are a cretin.Not to be petty, but I honestly don't see the point of reading the rest of your post as my responses thus far have not been engaged and I hardly think they will be in a post that begins that way. I'm sorry you feel frustrated and I hope you're able to reflect on the text much better in the future. I'm going to read the book; good luck.
>>21299872I don't see the point of you reading anything at all.
The biblical understanding of suffering is that the world is fallen and corrupt and that is why bad things happen. There are times where God provides protection from this and you can see this in one of the text that you quote: "Have You not made a hedge around him, around his household, and around all that he has on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his cattle have increased in the land." The Satan then asks God to reach out and strike down Job but that is not how God works. Instead he removes his hand of protection and allows Job to be afflicted by the Satan. So in this story we do not see God inflicting suffering on Job but rather God removing his hand of protection from Job and allowing the evil and chaos of the world to impact Job and his household in a way that he had chosen to protect him from in the past.Also, it is not God's stated goal to win a bet a with the Satan. That's not in the story at all. The story is there to teach that bad things can happen to good people. It is there to teach us to be compassionate to those we see in suffering and not to assume that their suffering is due to their own moral failings. In the end of the story God takes Job and shows him all that he has created and shows him that the world is much more complex that a simple human can comprehend.Basically reading Job is not about reading a narrative about something that happens. It is a book of wisdom that is there to teach us that bad things do indeed happen to good people. It is a book to teach us to have compassion on those that are suffering. It is a book to teach us to have humility and not assume that we understand how the world works.
>Average religion thread on /lit/>Here's an explanation of this parable>UH BUT GOD IS DUMB>Explain parable from a purely secular standpoint>OKAY BUT I DONT CARE GOD DUMB>IF GOD REAL WHY BAD THING HAPPEN>Thread isn't about that but you know Aquinas.tiff>I'M NOT READING THAT GOD DUMB>Why did you enter a religion thread on /lit/?>WOW BAD FAITH ARGUMENT YOU HAVE NO ANSWER TO MY QUESTIONS GOD DUMBEvery time.
You should thus perform your prescribed Vedic duties, since action is superior to inaction. By ceasing activity, even your bodily maintenance will not be possible.Work must be done as a yajna to the Supreme Lord; otherwise, work causes bondage in this material world. Therefore, O son of Kunti, for the satisfaction of God, perform your prescribed duties, without being attached to the results.In the beginning of creation, Brahma created humankind along with duties, and said, “Prosper in the performance of these yajñas (sacrifices), for they shall bestow upon you all you wish to achieve.”By your sacrifices, the celestial gods will be pleased, and by cooperation between humans and the celestial gods, great prosperity will reign for all.The spiritually-minded, who eat food that is first offered in sacrifice, are released from all kinds of sin. Others, who cook food for their own enjoyment, verily eat only sin.But those who rejoice in the self, who are illumined and fully satisfied in the self, for them, there is no duty.Such self-realized souls have nothing to gain or lose either in discharging or renouncing their duties. Nor do they need to depend on other living beings to fulfill their self-interest.Therefore, giving up attachment, perform actions as a matter of duty because by working without being attached to the fruits, one attains the Supreme.There is no duty for Me to do in all the three worlds, O Parth, nor do I have anything to gain or attain. Yet, I am engaged in prescribed duties.For if I did not carefully perform the prescribed duties, O Parth, all men would follow My path in all respects.If I ceased to perform prescribed actions, all these worlds would perish. I would be responsible for the pandemonium that would prevail, and would thereby destroy the peace of the human race.Those who are deluded by the operation of the guṇas become attached to the results of their actions. But the wise who understand these truths should not unsettle such ignorant people who know very little.Performing all works as an offering unto Me, constantly meditate on Me as the Supreme. Become free from desire and selfishness, and with your mental grief departed, fight!It is far better to perform one’s natural prescribed duty, though tinged with faults, than to perform another’s prescribed duty, though perfectly. In fact, it is preferable to die in the discharge of one’s duty, than to follow the path of another, which is fraught with danger.Those who see action in inaction and inaction in action are truly wise amongst humans. Although performing all kinds of actions, they are yogis and masters of all their actions.The omnipresent God does not involve Himself in the sinful or virtuous deeds of anyone. The living entities are deluded because their inner knowledge is covered by ignorance.
>>21299843>that much religitard cope >theology is the queen of sciences…Stopped reading there
>>21298625But like it actually does.
>>21300000>Stopped reading thereChecked but that was the last sentence, retard.
You are retarded, anon>>21299106>He is omniscientFind me in the whole bible where god is called "omniscient".The theological explaination can be, for example, found in girolamo savonarola "trattato contra li astrologi", where he says that if god created everything then he must know everything of everything. But i can debunk this by presenting you gen 1:1 where the spirit of God was hovering over the waters, after he created heaven and earth. Waters, which were not created by god, but were subjugated by him in order to create the world as we know it (also cfr. Job 38:8).>Job goes to heaven.Give me the source for your claim, because jews have no heaven. Job 42:17 talks about his death.Christian mythology tells us that jesus opened the gates of heaven and hell when he reincarnated.>Would you take the criticisms of a 8 year old with 40IQ?The younger you are the higher your iq ishttps://blog.mindvalley.com/average-iq-score-by-age/Because kids can assimilate faster.>in avoiding the revelation of MessiahWhat revelation? Ezekiel 12:26-28, Baruc 2:34 and Genesis 8:21-22 are enough to consider the new testament not revelatory of anything. >you've become literally BabylonianYou've never read the bible, anon. You posted no quote from the bible whatsoever, because you know nothing of it.>antisemitismAnd on that day was closed the mouth of all beasts, and of cattle, and of birds, and of whatever walks, and of whatever moves, so that they could no longer speak: for they had all spoken one with another with one lip and with one tongue.And He sent out of the Garden of Eden all flesh that was in the Garden of Eden, and all flesh was scattered according to its kinds, and according to its types unto the places which had been created for them.And to Adam alone did He give (the wherewithal) to cover his shame, of all the beasts and cattle.On this account, it is prescribed on the heavenly tablets as touching all those who know the judgment of the law, that they should cover their shame, and should not uncover themselves as the Gentiles uncover themselves.From jubilees 3:41-43.
>>21299150>If you don't non-critically accept the faith as axiom, you won't ever be religious.False. I am religious and I am very critical of people like >>21299232T. >>21300146
>>21299880Try not to seethe like a child,maybe you'll get a point across(and more likely, a point from someone smarter than you will get to you)
>>21299941It's the same with any emotionally charged argument, these people don't care about anything but releasing whatever pent up emotion is clouding their judgement due to some irl circumstances they'll never share/go into much, much like going on /r9k/ and arguing about women won't make you heard, no matter how correct you may be, they'll still blame them(both rightfully and wrongfully, because righteousness isn't at stake, purely venting is).
>>21299941The problem of evil has never been solved by Christianity. You can seethe about it all you fucking want you retard, but it's true. 99.9999% of your cuckolds haven't even read Schelling.
>>21300146> What revelation? Ezekiel 12:26-28, Baruc 2:34 and Genesis 8:21-22 are enough to consider the new testament not revelatory of anything.I read those quotes, I don't understand how they invalidate the New Testament
>>21296033Read The Brothers Karamazov it addresses the story of Job
>>21300052>but that was the last sentence, retard.So what ?
>>21300254I've repeatedly addressed all of your arguments in full. You cannot understand grammar or Logic, let alone Theology. You just repeat "sublime" and "narrative" like a monkey.
>>21300433I'm not that anon, I was just cringing on your behalf reading your replies. You understood nothing he said, you let anger get the better of you each and every time. Feels nice for your ego to "win" though, doesn't it?
>>21300570I only got angry here: >>21299848 . But, yes, I suppose it does "feel nice" to read the text Logically and not pad it with ideology.
>>21296033Anyone ever heard of nuance?
>>21300586Sadly you padded it with emotions which you rationalised away as logic.
>>21300596God uses Job as a fetish to proactively "challenge" Satan. The text begins with this grammatical, Logical fact. All subsequent events must be read in light of this principle.
>>21300359put ezekiel 12:26-28 and Genesis 8:21-22 with Revelations: if god says he will never "curse the land because of humans" but Revelations 16:1-2 talks about the bowls of god's wrath poured "on the land".plus, this has to happen as soon as possible, because if god says something, then it happens without being "delayed any longer", and so the prophet's vision cannot be "for many years from now", and the prophet will not prophesy "about the distant future".next, the messiah will bring all jews together (cfr. baruc) in Israel.jesus came, but the jews were still in rome and other cities which were not in israel. and the prophet (st. John) were talking about many years to come. and jesus himself was talking about many years to come, because he is not yet here.sorry i am lazy to quote everything. i hope you read the bible.
>>21296229Your answer doesn't actually work, although it's clear you think it does. God is mysterious on account of His highness, but He cannot be a total mystery otherwise we would have no right to worship Him since we don't know what it is that we are worshiping, nor would we even know if we are worshiping Him rightly. Man's idea of goodness must be like God's otherwise we have no hope of connection. By saying "shut up and put up" all you're really doing is confirming that you don't actually know who or what it is that you're worshiping.
>>21300629NTA but he told you why that isn't the story and you've done nothing but insist it is without backing it up or even responding. He even called you out on it. You just insisted your arguments and didn't respond when he pointed out exactly where you go wrong. Now you're arguing over the semantics of the word challenged again when that was explained more than once. You keep saying "PROACTIVE PROACTIVE PROACTIVE" in every post when god's omnipotence was afforded before you even brought it up and was explained multiple times without you acknowledging. It's like you're completely filtered by the story and just sperg predictable nonsense because you're the one acting "ideologically." You didn't even respond when he watered down the theology to make it agnostic and you cried "word salad" because you're too stupid to know you're filtered. You had a strawman idea of what the book of job represents and refuse to speak to a more nuanced interpriation of it. You call other people ideological? You're retarded.
>>21300770He did not explain anything, merely restate the same nonsense. Look at this SHIT:>>21299640>1. That God proactively summons Satan?>Yes. Satan "also came along."Do you also think that "and Satan also came among them" excludes Satan from the category of Angels being summoned? If I say "the people in this thread are mongolods, and you are among them", does that exclude you from the category of people I deed mongoloids? ABSOLUTE failure to understand the ELEMENTARY Logic. You are beasts.
>>21296033>Being mad that God destroys everything you know instead of realizing it's the inevitability of all material things and not just being happy that your family was pretty much guaranteed entry into heavenGod was right obviously. Satan is just a sore loser pussy as usual.
>>21298294it do be like that>>21298625biggest retard pseud in this thread
>>21300865I am a Christian but posts like yours are useless. You're actively driving people away from God with low effort, banal, partisan sniping.
>>21300894you’re so pious, tell me more about your mission to spread the good word to 4chan and how it makes you feel self-righteous
>>21300902>As God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience. (Colossians 3:12)
>>21300915>and so the lord sayeth, go among the imageboards and collect ye dollars for the virtual cuss jar, smite those posters whom do not kisseth your ass and respect your personageget a life
>>21300933Who are you quoting?
>>21296033You idiots were filtered so hard, or are you trying to dumb yourself down to shitpost? First of all the language is magnificent. I've only found a metaphorical texture so rich, bold, inventive, and shameless in the exhibitionism of its power in Shakespeare and Emily Dickinson. There is nothing even in Dante that gives the impression of a divine voice as this God speaking from within the bowels of the whirlpool. Dante's saints, angels and archangels have a pasteurized voice compared to Yahweh's language. Even the image of God in Dante is of a beauty full of pattern and symmetry, something like a cathedral carved in Diamond, but such a cathedral couldn't compare to a great thunderstorm flooding the skies with lightning when seen for the first time.Second, there is the theme of God's answer. Basically he tells Job that he can do whatever he wants because everything that exists he created, and he knows the bowels of every atom in the universe and the consciousness of every droplet of time. There is no right or wrong for the hands who caressed electromagnetism, gravity, space and time as if they were kittens. Inside the inkwells with which the laws of the universe were written no morality slept; there is no obligation swimming inside that ink. If humanity presents mathematical equations to this God and demands from him explanations for errors in the structure of the Universe the divinity may well bend and twist this logic as he sees fit, he may create an algebra that algebra itself cannot even dream of. There is no atrocity, no pain, no injustice, no offense capable of putting this force of forces in the defendants bench. What can a strand of straw do if it catches fire? Sue the sun?
>>21300731Surely you're taking Ezekiel out of context? God says "none of my words will be delayed any longer." However, the prophecy of Isaiah - namely, that nations will beat their swords into plowshares and will come and worship at the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem - has not happened yet.
>>21296195>and our capacity to understand the beyond complex machinations of his plan is beyond the scope of our ability,Reddit response, I hate this interpretation. In God's answer there is no simple "Things are too complex for you to understand, but there is a grammar and calculation that must be respected so that the whole does not fall apart". It's not simple like this, what he does is to show off: "Things are much more complex than you are capable of understanding, and at the end of the day this is my work of art, this is my book, and I don't admit that any letter come tell me what I can and cannot do".God's speech is something like saying to anyone who looks up to the stars: “Here is what you see: The Universe. A cold, indifferent face, with calm eyes, a serene smile, that looks at the joys and agonies of life and doesn't raise an eyebrow, doesn't even twist the corner of the mouth, doesn't make a small wrinkle appear in its features. In front of this face nature rips itself open in its great and frothy howl of horror, it throws its breath and its blood on it, it spits in its cheeks, it writhes, it has its being torn open to the marrow, it is turned over like a wallet, it is opened in teeth, bones and guts, but the universe doesn't even blink. If pain and suffering were a fluid, like tears, Earth would have softened like a loaf of bread dipped in soup long ago, but the heavens have continued and will continue to look on with cold, indifferent pupils.”
>>21300983That is, YAHWEH is kind of allegorical for the extant nature of the universe. It's unknowably vast, has absolute power over you, and must be appeased in order for you to prosper within its domain. In the same way that you NEED to find shelter or ELSE you will freeze to death, that you NEED to get food or ELSE you will starve, you NEED to acknowledge God, or ELSE you will be damned. The Book of Job is about how even if you DO acknowledge God, the nature of existence itself is that you can do everything right and things can still go catastrophically wrong for you and everybody you care about. When that happens, you have two choices. You can give up on the entire interplay between yourself and nature that causes good things to happen to you and those around you, falling into self-destructive behaviors instead. Or, you can choose to stoically persist through suffering, and insist upon prosperity despite your many hardships. The Book of Job is basically somebody asking "But why does life have to be so hard? "And God answers "FOR YOU
>>21300780>no himWhere does it say god summoned the devil? All you had is "ALL POWAFUL THO!" after it was pointed out beforehand with an explaination of how it factors into the overall story. You never addressed that. Why is the devil's take on why Job is good not a challenge? You got multiple answers to your complaints and explainations but never addressed them. It's because of "ALL POWAFUL THO" again. It was pointed out the idea of the story is you don't have the ability to understand what that even means not to mention you're using is as a deux ex machina for all arguments. inb4 "NO YOU NOW." It's a shallow take and the definition of being ideological. You have a kernal of belief about something and you're unable to directly respond to criticism of your belief. You recontextualize what is said according to your bias you just dismiss shit without dealing with it honestly. You don't know you're filtered because your bias tells you that you already know everything and you remain blissfully unaware of your ignorance. Too bad you don't understand Job because it's meant for retards like you.
>>21300992>Where does it say god summoned the devil?Since Satan cannot present himself to God against God's will then, categorically, God must have summoned Satan. This is Logic, not bias.
>>21300979See >>21300769 You're inadvertently arguing for a God who is totally alien to us in your attempts to explain Job. It's unnecessary. God's highness is the answer ultimately, but it isn't the whole of the answer. God will ultimately have mercy on whom He will have mercy. His motivations are His own. But God tells us that He nevertheless chooses to have mercy on all who ask for it by virtue of His goodness: For thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive, and plenteous in mercy unto all them that call upon thee. (Psalm 86.5)
>>21300979>What can a strand of straw do if it catches fire? Sue the sun?Acknowledge that the sun is Evil and die.
>>21301027Following on from this... part of "the point" of Job is to remind us that suffering is ultimately not a worthwhile challenge to God's existence or goodness because human suffering is highly relative and transitory. A child who scrapes his knee may, in that moment, weep and cry out as if his whole world is about to end - because he genuinely feels that it will! Yet everyone knows that this child will have forgotten the trouble by next week. In the same way, all the discomfort of our sufferings and trials will ebb away completely in the face of God's eternal love for us. Saying that the problem of evil is sufficient to lose faith in God is tantamount to saying that the child is right for assuming the world has ended because of a scrapped knee.Ultimately, our sufferings really don't matter anywhere near as much as we think they do. This is what Job came to understand.
>>21301074Consequentialism is an abomination.
>>21301023>"ALL POWAFUL THO!"As predicted. >fails to respond to the context in the other postsAs predicted.>muh logic so it just is OK!Filtered because you already know everything. As predicted.
>>21301081The ends never justify the means from a human perspective because human beings are fallible and prone to failure. No matter how carefully we plan, our plans may falter and so it is wrong for us to attempt to justify our behaviour by relying totally on the outcome. God, however, has no such failings since He is over and above time.
>>21301096No, consequentialism itself, not its failure, is an abomination.
He was a pedo, bro. Thats all. He was a pedo, Got raped, ostracized, everything.But stayed in his faith and didnt got tempted, in the end he had new kids and lots of moneys
>>21301090Yes? I haven't even read the posts I haven't replied to. You all walk on all fours and squawk. Even the subhuman garbage that others have posted is likely well beyond your understanding. By all means, prove me wrong.
>>21301106How can you say a thing in itself is an abomination without referring to its definition? You seem to be saying that consequentialism is wrong on an essential basis, but what is this essence you're referring to? "Consequentialism" is a term that is governed by its meaning, not an entity in itself.
>>21301144Good as a consequence of Evil is an abomination.
>>21301171A possessor of infinite Good can demand and enforce infinite Evil.
>>21301175Again, why do you think this?
>>21301144Can a monster still be called a monster if it isn't doing monstrous things? Only if the monster is truly a monster, but what defines a monster?
>>21301177Since infinite Evil...is Evil.
>>21301185>because a being can do a thing this means that being must do a thingYou seem to have confused God with an ever-expanding nuclear explosion. God is infinite, but His will isn't governed by the concept of infinity itself. Rather, God is capable of modulation.
>>21301120>"I DIDN'T REPLY TO WHAT I DIDN'T READ!"You replied to anon's posts but couldn't respond to his arguments. You can't respond to my criticism of how you've carried yourself. You just say predictable shit "ALL POWAFUL THO!" and assert your position, like an ideologue and after it was predicted, with no acknowledgement of criticism. You don't reference the text except over pointless semantical arguments which were entertained and explained. You weren't able to provide retort. You are incapable of understanding clearly presented context and elucidation. You can't even expand on your points and just resort to asserting it "LOGIC BRO!" You're a pathetic pseud who projects his nonsense into the void. inb4 "NO YOU!" Cope fuckhead. Cope.
>>21300327>The problem of evil has never been solved by Christianity.Google problem of evil and show me 0 answers to it then
>>21301212God chooses to do good and not evil.
>>21301209Can you, then, say anything coherent in relation to: >>21299436 >>21299572 >>21299692 >>21299848 ? To recapitulate: 1. God proactively summons Satan.2. God proactively brings up Job.3. God proactively treats Job preferentially. 4. God proactively tortures Job.All literally confirmed by the grammatical, Logical structure of the text. There nothing for me to address regarding "sublime" and "narrative", since they do not pertain to the text.
>>21301185Infinite Evil is Yin to Infinite Good's Yan. Destruction itself is a form of creation, just as Creation itself comes at the cost of Destruction. If one destroying is to reduce to nothing, from that form of nothing one can create to form the sum. You can tear down a sand castle down to sand, only for one to create another from it.
>>21301221How does this change the fact that he is capable of infinite Evil?
>>21301240What point are you trying to make?
>>21301246That an agent capable of infinite Evil is Evil.
>>21301236Catholics are orientalists in drag, yes, I know.
>>21301250>a father is capable of snapping their infant son's neck>therefore the father is evil because he has already snapped their son's neck by virtue of being capable of itwhat?
>>21301256No, that's illogical. Being capable of doing something is not the same as doing it.
>>21301265Yes. However, it does compromise any and all laws or wagers imposed by said agent, since the potential of total reversibility hangs over it.
>>21301269>since the potential of total reversibility hangs over itGod is good, therefore God chooses never to lie.
>>21300980last isaiah is not isaiah. last isaiah came after the conquest of jerusalem, so he is a false prophet.read the bible anon.
>>21301265Then if one is capable of sin, is it not the same as doing it?
>>21301274Could it not be said that God is likewise Evil, and chooses to lie?
>>21301278That reference to swords being beaten into ploughshares is found in all canonical copies of the Old Testament. What are you on about?
>>21301284I think it's more spoken of 'In Absolutes' but mostly lay in the fact they know the outcome anyway - but allow breathing room out of courtesy
>>21301281>>21301284No, x is not the same as y. Either explain your reasoning or stop replying. This cryptic approach of yours is doing you no favors.
>>21301254Thats not the same. The father didnt invent infant neck snapping, while God intentionally created evil as a choice. We would still have free will without evil, evil and good are far from the only choices humans can make.
>>21301287>canonical copiesi spit on the canon.god said he wouldnt talk about the last days after the prophecy that babylon will conquer jerusalem. he would just give prophecies which will happen in a short time. last isaiah is a false prophet. isaiah 2 is the only thing we have about the end of times. i wrote this in a hurry sorry but i gtg so gn everyone.
>>21301289You said that consequentialism is good (>>21301096). What would prevent God from being Evil per consequentialism? A simple contiguity on either side of which infinite Evil and infinite Good exist, by the same measure that he is x today, he can be y tomorrow.
>>21301234>THERE'S NOTHING TO ADDRESS BECAUSE i SAY SO!Wow, you truly are retarded.
>>21301314>Can you, then, say anything coherent...
>>21301298God did not create evil. Evil is an absence of good. >We would still have free will without evilFree will without some instance of a choice to do evil may not be logical: "If an essence has transworld depravity, and God wishes for us to have free will, God will not actualize a world where that essence's instantiation only does what is right. From this it follows that God will not actualize any morally perfect world containing the instantiation of that essence."
>>21301310God is a perfect being who does not change.
>>21301324Evil is a concept that God created, and absence or not God should have the power to stop his absence from being evil, since he is all powerful.
>>21301289>SinWhat IS Sin? Definition wise it's an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law. Yet, all those immoral acts vary depending on who/what/where/when and why - for it seems in certain sects and certain views of The Divine Law all vary depending on what they classify as an immoral act. It may be to one party, may not be to another. All of it boils down to lawyering on what they can define as sin, unless it is a universally agreed upon sin. Yet - if Man is deemed to be cursed of the first sin and are to turn to God/Jesus for redemption from it, it's automatically instilled as sin by default nature. The whole job to redeem the sinner lies in the existence of sin to be there. Doctors came from those staunching others' wounds. Yet - are we bound to be completely dependent on the Doctor to nurture and heal us everytime we fall and scrape our knee, or do we better ourselves to not fall again and again repeatedly like before? If a Doctor, however, is constantly ensuring that he is needed of his services for every minute and molecular infraction, then it seems you just cannot breathe without needing his assistance. Thus in this context of "Sin" - are we to wholly depend on Judgement in order to continually monitor and check on us, or are we only in the committing of those sins, held accountable for them by the Lord or by ourselves for having fallen into it after having first naught?
>>21301331Does consequentialism not constitute change?
>>21301335I don't believe you've understood my quote. Please read up on transworld depravity.
>>21301338God both creates and maintains man. God doesn't simply create us; He holds us together.>>21301339No. God is an eternal being who nevertheless eternally wills certain events to happen at certain points in time within temporal space.
This guy at work went on for ten minutes the other day about how anyone who believes in God is stupid, has low IQ, etc. etc. The only thing I do because of my God is try to be better to and for other people, and try to do the right thing even if it's the thing that hurts me. I get that there are a lot of really crazy people, with their hearts in the wrong place, who call themselves Christian, but...what's wrong with simply trying to do what's best, knowing and having faith in something beyond yourself, and having comfort that there's something beyond this life? Idk. Many Christians are nutso, but just as many Athiests seem like they just want to crush good will and happiness.>t. Athiest for 25 years converted to (non-denominational) Christian for 6
>>21301344Yes, salad dressing to cover up the all powerful, pure good God paradox. Gods absence being evil is his choice, I do not care that it is an impossible world from your perspective, from an all powerful beings perspective there is no impossibility, even if it is incomprehensible.
>>21301362>the infinite and the temporal do...not constitute a changeANYWAY, not related to you, but I'm finally leaving this God-forsaken thread.
>>21296033That people feel like they should be able to understand and logic-check things that are plainly beyond their comprehension is mind-boggling. It's like attempting to describe three-dimensional objects in two dimensions. There's missing information when people attempt to describe good and evil, and whatever view we might get is only one complete face if we're lucky. That's not to say that there's not value in conversation and discussion about these topics, but you can't approach it with your preconceived notions set in stone one way or the other or else you won't get anywhere. >Hurr God is all-powerful, so he should be able to do this or that, so WHY DOESN'T HE?is the epitome of braindead lazy retardation
>>21301373Also, logic, the way it is, was also set by God. Everything apparently has been. So in that sense any excuse for evil having to have to exist, is an excuse for him creating the universe in the way that he has.
>>21301383Thank god that he didn’t give us the ability to understand him using the logic he created, truly merciful and good.
>>21301362In my view, yes - although I see it more akin to a prism. Yes, there is many points of view that can point back to the one for it to radiate outward in multitude of forms and functions beyond comprehension - but all prisms have facets to them and each facet depends on what 'beacon of light' they're getting their light from (being the soul in this case)One may live a life not having committed murder and did all the right things, but depending on who/what/where/when and why - there will be someone depicting something or everything out as a sin and thus are marked for damnation. What's to say the God that I worshiped that loved me graciously in my life is the same God that is damning me to eternal hellfire and torment?
>>21301387This implies that free will isn't a beautiful concept, which it is. Evil is necessary for free will to exist. Free will is an inherent good. Therefore it is wrong to assume that the existence of evil is somehow a refutation of God's goodness. Every rose has its thorn, as the saying goes. Free will without an instantiation of evil isn't free will; it's something else. God deemed free will better than this "something else," and I have no reason to believe He was wrong in this.
>>21301402You are a human being, not an infinite prism that exists in all places doing all things.
>>21301396I don't understand why you would think that that is a given, let alone what it has to do with mercy or good.
>>21301418This is true - but until Death is proven as not a thing to be feared, the threat of Death being used as a toy by those deemed opposition is the just a thing when it comes down to brass tacks. I mean - the last thing I'd wanna do is get my head lopped off just cause I ate some shrimp and someone just happened to come from a sect that says shrimp is pure God kryptonite for some reason.
>>21296033Every knee will bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Amen.
Its good we do not understand him and that so many people will burn in hell because he made it so cryptic and hard to understand? Whats so good and merciful about that?
>>21301319>it's your's and the other two anon's fault that I didn't understand!Being right isn't democratic but when multiple anons understood it and you can't even express why it doesn't make sense, just complain about the semantics of certain words while not responding to the multitude of criticisms offered of your point, the problem is with you, retard. Keep coping.
>>21301444What a retarded and loaded question. Are you serious?
>>21301444>What is philosophy>What is lifeYou dropped this, btw
>>21301528True, God is based, all the midwits and retards will day on the day of judgement. Amen
More like the Book of Jobber
>>21300385>STOPPED READING THERE!That was the last sentence>SO WHAT? You're a retard. That's what.
>>21299244There is an incomplete isomorphism between this example and the book of Job. The domination and suffering imposed by Stalin is entirely human, finite, and uncompensated. The suffering imposed by God on Job pales in comparison to the infinite goodness and reward wrought by being incorporated into God’s kingdom. Although it’s not a good idea to argue that an action can be excused because you HAVE TO SUBMIT to the moral regime circumscribing it, the point anon is making still holds because there is no worldly analogy which fits to bring it down.
imagine being the product of unfathomable processes and thinking you know better than your creator. That's what the message of Job is.
>>21300146>You are retarded, anonNo, u. You're not even worth seriously replying to.>>21300152>religiousExactly. There is a world of difference between someone who is religious and someone who has faith. Someone who is merely religious will find themselves in Hell, same as any unbeliever.
Next Jesus WILL be trans and CUTE
The only thing I learn from this thread is that you people need to touch grass.
>>21301800Came here to say this.It takes a special kind of pride for oneself to think themself the equal of God.
>>21302820Never going to happen.
>>21301466Logic is not "semantics". Grammar is not "semantics". Textual evidence is not "semantics".
>>21301800If God's thought processes are so incomprehensible as to be nonsense to us then there's no point in obeying or worshipping him to begin with, he's basically just Azathoth. Nothing he does will ever make sense to anyone so it's useless to even assume that his "grand plan" will be good or beneficial in any way that's meaningful to human beings.To posit this idea that God is so inscrutable as to be totally inaccessible to us is to more or less imply that God and ultimately reality itself is completely irrational and nullifies all rational thought. Why the fuck would anyone even bother trying to follow God's commandments when God could decide tomorrow that following the commandments is actually sinful and you get instantly smited and can't complain because he says he knows better?
>>21302385>No, u. You're not even worth seriously replying to.I accept your concession, but I have to say that it was extremely easy to prove you wrong. I hope you will read the Bible next time we meet. >someone who is religious and someone who has faith.The truth is that someone who has faith is someone who rejects to try to understand God, and instead fetishizes the word of Catechism.
>>21301800>>21302833See >>21300769 and >>21301027
>>21301415How can evil be necessary for free will to exist in the Christian paradigm?How does one then understand the state of the human nature after the last judgement when man is restored to the goodness he had before the fall? Where evil is destroyed and he will have no capacity for it? Will he be lacking free will?I always understood the Christian concept of free will as being the choice between different goods and the choosing to do evil as a failure of the free will which is inhibited by corruption and weakness.
>>21296033Job was messed up mentally and started saying some unfair things. God basically says he's in complete control and everything will be fine so don't worry about it.Job apologizes. That last part a lot of modern people can't deal with because they think changing themselves for the better is a bad thing
>>21303774>changing themselves for the better is a bad thing>literally being gaslighted into thinking your sadistic torture was good because pedo Jew on the sky is more powerful Room temperature IQ
>>21302947>logic is not "semantics"Arguing over the use of a word (e.g. "challenged") is semantics. Ignoring someone else's explainations to affirm your argument without proving it, which has been thoughtfully rejected, isn't logic. In this place it was predicted you would assert a tautological belief "ALL POWAFUL THO" and continue to retreat to it instead of meeting new context so you could simply reject it without actual argument. That is the definition of ideological. Cope.>Textual evidence is not "semantics".The other anon referenced textual evidence. You did not. Cope.
>>21299021>i can´t have the burden of liberty, i´m too much of a cuck to handle itok
>>21305025All your claims are false. Arguing over the use of "challenge" (>>21299436 >>21300629) is not "semantics", since Satan does not challenge God. Which is an unimpeachable fact, based on the Logic of the text, according to which an omnipotent (a word which, apparently, makes you lose your mind and degenerate into...semantics, if you will) being cannot be challenged. The definition of "omnipotent" is precisely that, omnipotent, which is not tautological at all, at least nor more or less than that of any other words. Any "explanation" of omnipotence which detracts from the Logic, that of total power, is not an explanation at all, it is ideology, apology, and "semantics", if you will, into which clowns like yourself retreat. Please stop replying, you have said precisely NOTHING in all of your replies thus far, and will continue saying NOTHING no matter how many you write. You are a Moral coward and an imbecile.
i quite like more how the ancient greeks dealt with tragedy, this judean masochistic tendency of trusting god even if shit happens is pure wishfulfillment that has no basis in reality
>>21305025>>21305121ALSO, I referenced the text first (>>21299436).
>>21300780ALSO, note how the ABYSMAL failure to understand Language itself went by unnoticed by every moron in here. Every COCKSUCKING clown who pontificates about the "sublime" IS ALL BUT ILLITERATE. What a FUCKING DISGRACE! Fuck all of you.
>>21305121>Satan does not challenge GodThe devil's actions in the text are referred to as a challenge. In fact, 4 of the top 5 results of a google seach for "satan challenge god," including the top result, are in direct reference to the book of job. You are wrong and that's why you resort to asserting you have a monopoly on semantics without proving your argument. God's omnipotency was throughly discussed even before you brought it up because you are predictable. Predictabiliy is one of the signals that someone is ideologically possessed can only argue disingenuously. You gave way to constant projection and frustration throughout all of your conversations ITT because you actually don't have any arguments beyond "GOD ALLPOWAFUL THO SO I RIGHT," which is the assertion of a tautology devoid of textual reference and actually engaging with the narrative itself. You will not address the above. You have not addressed any criticisms of your argument and you've only reasserted yourself as correct without any elaboration of your position and while freely admitting, without any self-awareness, that you aren't engaging with specifics offered by your opponents. You are wrong. You are too stupid to understand not only why but also how you are wrong. You are a retard. Cope.
>>21305161You didn't reference the text first. You took issue with a colloquial rendering/reference to the text and this was eventually met with an anon posting the KJV of the text itself. See >>21305292. I point that post out again because you're very stupid and probably think the prediction of your argument before you wrote it is the same as referencing the text first. You have not elaborated on your argument even to the degree of which it was brought up beforehand. You have not addressed criticism of your points which was offered meticulously and in good faith. You have not addressed the context raised by multiple anons. This is all because you have no actual argument, only the assertion of a tautological position devoid of textual reference or context within the story itself. You're a retard. People have been right in abandoning conversations with you. You probably think this means you won the argument because you got to assert your conclusion after everyone else did but in reality they found your comments devoid of insight and not worth engaging. This is why you are terminally online and have no real friends. Cope.
You're missing out on a few key things, that are indeed quite subtle. I recomend also reading some of Kierkegaard for relevance. Job is the Knight of Infinite Resignment, his faith is defective. 1. Job was a righteous man, but for the wrong reason. He did not have true faith, and God knew it. Satan may have felt this deficiency when God bragged about Job, and so accused him before the Lord. Satan had also accused Abraham like this, see Jubilees.2. Job's friends, none of them really knew Job. They accused him, like Satan, of everything he actually wasnt guilty of. They showed thier foolishness as emblematic of men in general, and in certain ways they would be the accusations of the Pharisees against Christ. These accusations, although false, did draw out his anger and frustration with God. 3. With his flaws revealed, God comes and lays it all out for Job, and Satan who is presumed to be in attendance, although never noted. He knows His creations, down to every Man, and He is in control. Job, whose name means repenter, does indeed repent and God accepts his righteousness. >Some friends you are!
>>21301785>I was only PRETENDING to be retarded
>>21305292>>21305350How fucking pathetic can you get? "4 of the top 5 results of a google seach"! A fucking animal! Yes, Satan's actions in the text are referred to as a challenge, by cretins like yourself, who comprise the majority of Catholic cocksuckers, hence the Google search results. You are dumb animals who do not possess Language, thus you cannot understand that on omnipotent being cannot be challenged. By the way, out of morbid curiosity, I actually went back and read the whole thread, hoping to find at least SOMETHING that passes for the "explanation" you keep referring to. Unsurprisingly, nothing. Note your TOTAL cretinism: YES, I referenced the text first (>>21305161), by Logically stating the events of the text, and posting an excerpt. This is, likewise, a Logical fact. Unimpeachable and totally incomprehensible to mongoloids like you. Stop replying.
>>21306262If Job was righteous for the wrong reason then he was like that per God's will, as are all other things since he is omnipotent. Satan can no more challenge that than he can challenge anything else, since he is not omnipotent.
>>21306262>>21307362Also, in general, for anyone else who wants to reply, ask yourselves: 1. Can an omnipotent being be challenged? (No.)2. Does my claim change the definition of omnipotence?3. Does my claim change the definition of a challenge?If your claim changes neither then refer to 1 and refrain from posting it.
It's so sad to me that 4chan is the first place I come to and see any un-marble-smooth-brain interpretations of Job. I guess it's South Park's fault, but realizing that, I get even more sadder and madder.
>>21307342>gets proven wrong by a google search>cries it doesn't count>called out that he doesn't respond to criticism and will do it again this time>doesn't answer to the (accurate) characterization of his "argument" and spergs about the anon who filtered/BTFO'd him >thinks it's really important that he referenced the text !FIRST! and probably thinks this counts as textual evidence>just ignores the original post he responded to was a point form summary and other anons have directly referenced the text while explaining their positions on it (he hasn't) >called out again that his only argument is that god is all powerful and that this was predicted by a different anon and explained in the context of the text>once again plainly asserts his position without responding to criticism of it (because he can't and his whole argument is that god is all powerful)>made fun of for getting frustrated instead of deliniating his argument and responding to criticism>seethes that no one has criticised him because he's an ideologue and recontextualizes criticism by monopolyizing semantics and asserting a tautological element >maintains his complete lack of self awareness while repeatedly stating "LOGIC LOGIC" over and over againI tip my fedora to you, sir.
>>21307474A Google search can likewise claim that God does not exist. Pitiful. All you say is precisely NOTHING. No one in this thread has changed the definition of omnipotence. No one in this thread has changed the definition of a challenge. No on in this thread can deny that an omnipotent being cannot be challenged. Therefore, the presence of said replies is worth no more than their absence. Likewise, textual quantitative distance, say, the number of subsequent words and/or time spent reading do precisely NOTHING to change said principles. Conversely, I am the only one who has correctly stated the aforementioned things, in perfect consonance with the text, Job in particular and the Bible in general. To recapitulate, not for you, since you are an animal, but for anyone else looking to reply: >>21299572Does the text contradict:1. That God proactively summons Satan?2. That God proactively brings up Job?3. That God proactively treats Job preferentially?4. That God proactively tortures Job?
>>21307530>A Google search can likewise claim that God does not exist. Which is a valid assertion and debatable but that's beside the point. A google search demonstrates that "satan" (i.e. from a verb which literally translates from hebrew as "to obstruct or oppose") challenging god is a valid reading of the text. It's the literal definition of the name. Now, do you want to do your "no you" act yet again and claim I'm the one arguing semantics? Because even this slide proves you're incorrect.>All you say is precisely NOTHING. According to you because you're filtered and recontextualize criticism of your singular argument according to its tautological assertion. You think this gives you the ability to ignore valid criticism without actually addressing it beyond stating that it is wrong. That's the definition of ideological possession.>No one in this thread has changed the definition of omnipotence.Before you even brought it up it was predicted that such was the basis of your argument. It was pointed out that such would lead to a shallow reading of job and mocked by asking if you took issue with the fact god had to ask satan where he had been. Job is a narrative about the nature of god's omnipotency in relation to man which you are clearly filtered by. >No one in this thread has changed the definition of a challenge.Wow, for a guy who claimed his arguments weren't based on semantics you're sure digging your own grave. Luckily you're a retard with no selfawareness and won't notice it. We don't have to change the definition of the word challenge. I can challenge god right now. You're hung up on the idea that you have a monopoly on understanding the nature of god's omnipotency and it's ironically over a text about how man cannot understand the nature of it. You assert that god controls everything so everything that happens is because of his will. It's not a difficult argument, it's just incredibly shallow in relation to the narrative presented in job. This has already been explained to you above and you refuse, more likely you're unable, to address it.>No on in this thread can deny that an omnipotent being cannot be challenged.I just did. The adversary's role is to challenge god. Simple as. Once again you assert your conclusion from a tautological base and claim a monopoly on the semantics of argument. It is by your definition that you cannot be incorrect and not by method of debate or the weight of your, completely singular, argument. That is why you're an ideologue and that is why you're continuously filtered by counterarguments and unable to address them. >Therefore, the presence of said replies is worth no more than their absence.Please develop just some sense of awareness. Please? You're arguing by the method laid out above in previous posts with absolutely realization of it. It really is pathetic and I'm getting second hand embarressment now because of that.
>>21307530> Conversely, I am the only one who has correctly stated the aforementioned things, in perfect consonance with the text, Job in particular and the Bible in general.No. You asserted your position repeatedly without addressing criticism because you're retarded. >o recapitulate, not for you, since you are an animal, but for anyone else looking to reply:Tips fedora.>Does the text contradict:>1. That God proactively summons Satan?>2. That God proactively brings up Job?>3. That God proactively treats Job preferentially?>4. That God proactively tortures Job?That was already refuted and you admitted you were filtered when you wrote "world salad." >>21299640.You're a retard.
>>21307663All you say is nothing. The etymology of the name "Satan" is irrelevant; Stalin is not made of steel, Adolf is not a wolf, etc. God's omnipotence cannot have a relation to man other than that of total power, i.e. no relation, strictly speaking. Lastly, no, you cannot challenge an omnipotent being: that an omnipotent being can overcome all challenges does not mean that a single challenge can be even made in the first place, the preclusion of all challenges is likewise integral to omnipotence, and does not contradict the power to overcome them. Too bad you cannot get second hand literacy.
>>21307670Being illiterate is one thing, but please at least format your replies better. I addressed that comment in full, except that particular point which is literally grammatically incoherent.
>>21307716>addressed that comment in full No you didn't and no one else had trouble understanding what was written in that post. Due to that fact, it's obvious that you're filtered and dismissing the arguments offhand because you can't meet them. I'll add some more context to it because you're unable to do so. First, in the text we have no reason given as to why/how satan appears before god. Simple as. You continue to ignore the fact god had to ask satan where he was and what he was doing. That's not to say god didn't know, he's omnipotent, but it's reflective of tboj's nature being in narrative form and underscores why simply falling back on the tautology that god is all powerful is a shallow take. The point of the story is that we don't have the ability to comprehend what all powerful actually entails so it's ironic that you assert monopoly on such. It demonstrates you're filtered. Second, no one said god didn't bring job up. Job was brought up in response to satan saying that he had been walking the earth. This is because job stands as an example of holy fidelity and is unimpeachable. This is the entire point of the story and satan challenges god on this fact. Third, the point of the book is that god is in no need of apologetics due to his nature. Those that try to compartmentalize him and his ways into rational boxes and logicify why good things happen to bad people and vice versa are always going to be wrong. There's a limit to rational capabilities, this is a truism, and we cannot understand god or his ways. Therefore, it is clear from the text itself that you can't define what "proactively blessed" even means or what it entails. Fourth, it's clear in the text that god doesn't torture job and that satan fills that role. You can assert that god is omnipotent and in control of all things but in the narrative it is the adversary who brings woe to job. Simple as. So the take that god initiates a wager with satan so he can torture someone is a very shallow one. >The point of the narrative isn't God making a bet with Satan in order to torture Job; the point of the narrative is the sublime nature of God's will, that creation is beyond the ability to rationalize, and that Satan's challenge relating to God's exemplar only being an exemplar because he is blessed and has a sense of earthly/temporal justice failsThat's the actualy story. Assuming that you understand the nature of omnipotence and what it entails is wrong and that's a fundemental fact of reality. You don't have unlimited capabilities and presupposing you do in order to judge the actions of something that does is satanic pride, athiests' favorite cardinal sin and sometimes referred to as the source of all sins. No one is arguing that god isn't omnipotent but the issue is that you assert it as your only argument while ignoring what the text has to say about it. Stay filtered.
>>21307716>inb4 you cry about formatting again like a little bitch
>>21307796You are a cretin. Your reply is nothing but pontificating about the precise nature of omnipotence. Of course, you cannot know this. To you, Language does not exist beyond a tool for bestial libidinal discharge. >tboj'sESL too? Figures.
>>21307846>I have incapable of engaging these arguments and I am frustrated>I have also been called out on my manner of debate and have nowhere to goRetard.
>>21307856You have posted no arguments and have engaged in no debate. Again, you have said nothing. For example: IF you truly believed that one cannot assume to understand the nature of omnipotence, then you would have abstained from babbling about something being "reflective" thereof, about it being in a "narrative" form, about anything "underscoring" anything thereabout, about anything being "shallow" relative thereto. Insofar as you do babble as such, you claim to understand the nature of omnipotence. You cannot speak. You cannot think. You cannot be human.
>>21307868>I am unable to engage with your arguments>I will continue to be disingenuous and insist that I've somehow won even though I have failed to meet criticism or acknowledge context>what is more, my manner of debate has been pointed out to me and I lacked the self awareness necessary to refrain from it in my very next post>I am a terminally online faggot with no friends and will continue to jerk myself off in front of strangers to boost my flagging sense of self-esteemI accept you're concession, retard.
>>21307888I noticed that ESLs struggle not so much with English but with Language in general. Their failure to properly speak a second Language only reflects their failure to speak any Language at all. Among native speakers, this usually goes unnoticed, since casual, meaningless chatter tends to be all but alogical. But it becomes appallingly clear in a formal conversation. Failure to grasp categories, inclusion-exclusion, identity-difference, etc., elementary stuff. Of course, this has nothing to do with the structure of English, merely with its status as a lingua franca. I can only assume that there are as many bestial native speakers as there are ESLs. That is to say, it's not your fault.
>>21301443Amen! He is the boss and we will do what he says right guys?Only he can lead us to god, no one else
Book of Job - like most bible stories - is just a shitty copy of Babylonian poetry. In this case "ludlul bel nemeqi". The original makes much more sense because it is written from the perspective of the sufferer and doesn't invoke a nonsensical bet between god and satan.
>>21300979>>21300983Well written, faggot
>>21308171Hypothetically, other Prophets could also lead us to God, but they would espouse the exact same message. At which point they'd be effectively "clones."
>>21308682no it wasn't. it's fucking wankery, that did not deserve (you)s.
>>21307917>gets BTFO yet again>cries about a typo>[misused words in his posts]Ignorant as always.