tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post115072956557449315..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Why Trust God? (Part II)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1151417239210182852006-06-27T10:07:00.000-04:002006-06-27T10:07:00.000-04:00Notice that God says there was no reason for the s...Notice that God says there was no reason for the suffering brought on Job. God said it! This is gratuitous suffering without a point…“without any reason.” That’s why I said it was basically a bet with satan, for that's the only reason for God ruining Job for no reason.<BR/><BR/>The flaw in your reasoning stems from the fact that you are thinking like men (weak and short lived) and God is thinking like God (all powerful and ETERNAL). In the context of eternity, what were Job's sufferings? If a man suffers during the few years he has on this earth then lives in paradise for eternity how can the previous sufferings be counted as anything? 500 trillion years from now while Job is living at the Lord's side, do you think he will be lamenting the few years of suffering he had on this earth? <BR/><BR/>Cheers~brotherDBrother Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04645401412444899487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1150923200340351992006-06-21T16:53:00.000-04:002006-06-21T16:53:00.000-04:00The overriding cause was the bet itself. Which is...The overriding cause was the bet itself. Which is no reason to bring such terrible suffering on Job, especially when God supposedly knew the outcome. This is absolutely gratuitous suffering as depicted by an author of a fictitious story who claimed prophetic information about what happened in heaven, as did many ancient superstitious people, which merely makes God out to be a king after the fashion of most kings who didn't really care about their subjects. Get my drift? <BR/><BR/>You just refuse to see it, that's all. Because of your blinders. Take then off. See what the text actually says.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1150917129883480752006-06-21T15:12:00.000-04:002006-06-21T15:12:00.000-04:00Ebonmuse,Kaffinator ably dismantles your argument ...Ebonmuse,<BR/><BR/>Kaffinator ably dismantles your argument above, which is what I was getting at about you not having "preconceptions" when coming to the text. Of course you have preconceptions when coming to the text, and you are really only capable of the interpretation that supports your position. You however also stated:<BR/><BR/>we are fully capable of praising the text when it gives morally good lessons, but we are equally capable of condemning it when it teaches bad lessons.<BR/><BR/>This makes you (a fallen sinner) judge over the God revealed in Scripture. Are you the highest authority that can be appealed to? Or have you in fact set yourself up on that throne where God is seated? This displays the man-centeredness of your worldview, as well as your idolatry. In reality it is God who will judge you, not the other way around. Know with certainty you will one day stand before the God you so glibly reject and condemn. Your arguments will do you no good then. I don't say that uncompassionately, I say it with a desire to see you saved from your sin and unbelief. Please consider what I say...<BR/><BR/> --Jon UnyanAaron Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12330589396201996009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1150908007824063702006-06-21T12:40:00.000-04:002006-06-21T12:40:00.000-04:00> God is clearly saying that he was the one who ru...> <I>God is clearly saying that he was the one who ruined Job and that he had no cause to do so.</I><BR/><BR/>The clause as we read it in English ("you incited Me against him to ruin him without cause") can be interpreted in basically two ways. "without cause" either modifies the verb "incited" or the verb "ruin".<BR/><BR/>If "without cause" refers to God causelessly allowing Job to be ruined, then we have a problem. This reading directly contradicts Job 1:8-12 in which it is clear that God desires to show Satan that Job's faith does not depend on temporal blessings. This reading causes intrinsic problems so if we want to do justice to the text, we should prefer a reading that does not have these problems.<BR/><BR/>If "without cause" refers to Satan causelessly inciting God (and it was causeless, as we see Job continuing to praise God even in the midst of adversity at the end of chapter 1) then the text agrees with itself, Loftus' point evaporates, sanity is restored, ponies frolic in meadows, etc.<BR/><BR/>> <I>Your alternative reading is clearly being driven by a preconceived desire to bring to the text what you prefer to see in it.</I><BR/><BR/>Ebonmuse, if you want to talk about what is driving people, I'm game.<BR/><BR/>Your preconceived desire is to deny the power of God in general, and in this case, to deny His power to inspire scripture. Thus you must interpret scripture passages against the general grain of the text itself in order to demonstrate false teachings and contradictions that aren't actually there. You do this because you realize, as any intelligent person would, that if an authority more powerful and more benevolent than yourself exists, the only wise course of action would be to ally yourself fully with that authority. This frightens you, to voluntarily give up your own volition, but your reason demands it. Your only alternative is to project errors and falsehoods onto that authority, impugning it until it seems to be at or below the sinfulness of your own soul. Because only then can you justify dismissing it.Kaffinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09146781661881693212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1150904547613245082006-06-21T11:42:00.000-04:002006-06-21T11:42:00.000-04:00Ebonmuse,You think that you come to the text witho...Ebonmuse,<BR/><BR/>You think that you come to the text without preconceptions? Please...<BR/><BR/> --Jon UnyanAaron Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12330589396201996009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1150839012804357142006-06-20T17:30:00.000-04:002006-06-20T17:30:00.000-04:00"Secularism"'s comment fails on a crucial point: i..."Secularism"'s comment fails on a crucial point: if we truly do not know why God does what he does, then believers cannot call him evil, but <I>neither can they call him good</I>. Making that determination requires at least <I>some</I> understanding of motive and intent. If God's reasons are inscrutable to us, then the only thing an intellectually consistent theist could say is that they do not know whether God is good or evil, or even whether he is simply amoral, like a natural force.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1150838852788932602006-06-20T17:27:00.000-04:002006-06-20T17:27:00.000-04:00kaffinator, your argument makes no sense. God is c...kaffinator, your argument makes no sense. God is clearly saying that <I>he</I> was the one who ruined Job and that he had no cause to do so. Your alternative reading is clearly being driven by a preconceived desire to bring to the text what you prefer to see in it. It's the atheists, such as John and myself, who can view that text without preconceptions: we are fully capable of praising the text when it gives morally good lessons, but we are equally capable of condemning it when it teaches bad lessons. You, on the other hand, are only capable of one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1150822491917400102006-06-20T12:54:00.000-04:002006-06-20T12:54:00.000-04:00> Forest....trees. Only see the trees.But a forest...> <I>Forest....trees. Only see the trees.</I><BR/><BR/>But a forest is necessarily <I>made of trees</I>. You’ve done nothing here but prop up a couple of worm-ridden logs and asked, “can’t you see mighty forest of my argument?” Actually, no, I can’t.Kaffinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09146781661881693212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1150816739664800762006-06-20T11:18:00.000-04:002006-06-20T11:18:00.000-04:00It seems to me that Mr. Loftus's argument boils do...It seems to me that Mr. Loftus's argument boils down to this:<BR/><BR/>1) If God has a reason for something, I must know what that reason is.<BR/><BR/>2) I don't know what reason God had for acting in the story of Job.<BR/><BR/>.: God didn't have a reason for what happened in the book of Job.<BR/><BR/>But unless Mr. Loftus is omniscient 1) is flawed. This can be demonstrated by replacing "God" with any other person.<BR/><BR/>1) If John Loftus has a reason for something, I must know what that reason is.<BR/><BR/>2) I don't know what reason John Loftus had for wearing the clothes he is wearing today.<BR/><BR/>.: John Loftus doesn't have a reason for wearing clothes today.<BR/><BR/>In this instance we realize that simply because we do not know the reason something occurs does not mean that there <I>is no reason</I>, but instead only that <I>we do not know the reason.</I><BR/><BR/>Mr. Loftus's argument is dependent upon the fallacy of an appeal to ignorance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1150815380015908602006-06-20T10:56:00.000-04:002006-06-20T10:56:00.000-04:00So my question was why did God accept the challene...<EM>So my question was why did God accept the challenege in the first place, according to the story.</EM><BR/><BR/>For the sake of argument?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1150810597301360252006-06-20T09:36:00.000-04:002006-06-20T09:36:00.000-04:00The over-all purpose was the bet itself for God's ...The over-all purpose was the bet itself for God's selfish glory. But what glory does it bring God when he treats people like that? Such a God as that deserves no respect. It's called creating God in the image of an ancient potentate who does whatever he wills with his peon subjects.<BR/><BR/>Forest....trees. Only see the trees.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1150785372516662812006-06-20T02:36:00.000-04:002006-06-20T02:36:00.000-04:00Interesting. Jason at Triablogue levels the same c...Interesting. Jason at Triablogue levels the same criticism at your handling of Job 2:3...<BR/><BR/>Jason> <I>But if it's plausible that God is addressing Satan's motives rather than His own, then the passage loses the significance Loftus has attached to it.</I><BR/><BR/>Loftus> <I>Kaffinator, you don't know what I'm talking about? Figures.</I><BR/><BR/>Cute. But cute doesn't make your misread of Job 2:3 any more defensible. Your reading fails, bringing your entire argument along with it.Kaffinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09146781661881693212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1150779750911152342006-06-20T01:02:00.000-04:002006-06-20T01:02:00.000-04:00Thanks BF. I'm not always perfect. As far as Sec...Thanks BF. I'm not always perfect. As far as Secularism goes, you don't realize that I was attacking an argument based upon what others believe, do you? And based upon what THEY believe I find it faulty.<BR/><BR/>Kaffinator, you don't know what I'm talking about? Figures.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1150759339311663112006-06-19T19:22:00.000-04:002006-06-19T19:22:00.000-04:00John,Just a small correction, but Jason Engwer act...John,<BR/><BR/>Just a small correction, but Jason Engwer actually wrote "The Servant King" post that you are responding to not Steve Hays.SteveiT1Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15271837187081908611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1150756124321750842006-06-19T18:28:00.000-04:002006-06-19T18:28:00.000-04:00> If I have concluded more than what the Biblical...> <I> If I have concluded more than what the Biblical text said, then you have also concluded more than you can from what I wrote.</I><BR/><BR/>I have no idea what you are talking about. I’m simply quoting you. In your post, you wrote:<BR/><BR/>> <I> Notice that God says there was no reason for the suffering brought on Job. God said it! </I> [and later…] <I>I’m actually dealing with the text itself. God says he did it “without any reason.” God said that! God!</I><BR/><BR/>You used an explicit quote from verse 3. But I showed that you’re misusing it. God never said there was no purpose for the events. As often as you repeat “without any reason” (I count seven or eight times) you are resting on a flawed reading of the text.Kaffinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09146781661881693212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1150752460434255882006-06-19T17:27:00.000-04:002006-06-19T17:27:00.000-04:00I just wonder how you can say "Job is not reportin...I just wonder how you can say "Job is not reporting historical conversations between God, Satan and Job" and yet then use the quotes attributed to God <I>as if they were a faithfully recorded historical conversation</I>. (The only way you can conclude that God "had no reason" to torment Job is if you are taking those quotes as a faithful reporting of historical conversations.)<BR/><BR/>If it is not historical, as you yourself have claimed, then the quotes are instead a literary device and are not intended to be taken as a literal conversation, and thus your argument that God "has no reason" to torment Job has no substance.<BR/><BR/>So which point will you now reject: your argument that God has "no reason" to torment Job or your argument than the conversations recorded are not historical?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1150750572248396842006-06-19T16:56:00.000-04:002006-06-19T16:56:00.000-04:00The whole post deflates on this single point. If I...<I>The whole post deflates on this single point.</I> <BR/>If I have concluded more than what the Biblical text said, then you have also concluded more than you can from what I wrote.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1150748803030147252006-06-19T16:26:00.000-04:002006-06-19T16:26:00.000-04:00You say you are "dealing with the text itself" but...You say you are "dealing with the text itself" but your post mishandles verse 3. According to you, God said he had no purpose, but <I>God didn't say that at all</I>. The whole post deflates on this single point.Kaffinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09146781661881693212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1150747232523809812006-06-19T16:00:00.000-04:002006-06-19T16:00:00.000-04:00According to the story, Job did nothing wrong! Th...According to the story, Job did nothing wrong! There was no reason to do this to him, except to see if he would buckle under the pressure. A bet. The bet itself was the over-riding purpose in the story. Could a righteous man still maintain his intergrity if God threw it all at him? This bet also ignores the other people who suffered in the story. <BR/><BR/>Yet it was a needless bet, because we already knew God has the power to do whatever he wants, and God supposedly already knew the outcome.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1150738386255850562006-06-19T13:33:00.000-04:002006-06-19T13:33:00.000-04:00The LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My se...<I>The LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man fearing God and turning away from evil. And he still (B)holds fast his integrity, although you incited Me against him to ruin him without cause." </I>(Job 2:3)<BR/><BR/>This passage does not say that God had no overriding purpose. God is simply criticizing <I>Satan</I> for <I>Satan's</I> desire have Job ruined without cause.Kaffinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09146781661881693212noreply@blogger.com