Does satan need permission from God?

This has come up in another thread and needs calling out here.

In Job, satan had to ask permission to attack Job. Do you think this is a precedent?

Originally posted by divegeester
This has come up in another thread and needs calling out here.
In Job, satan had to ask permission to attack Job. Do you think this is a precedent?

A precedent and a direct contradiction. In the OT it is stated that god will not allow evil in his presence. Either Satan is not evil or god is not omnipresent (or both).

Originally posted by divegeester
This has come up in another thread and needs calling out here.

In Job, satan had to ask permission to attack Job. Do you think this is a precedent?

No. If he did, then God is ultimately responsible for evil.

Originally posted by divegeester
This has come up in another thread and needs calling out here.

In Job, satan had to ask permission to attack Job. Do you think this is a precedent?

As I understand it, Satan did not ask permission to attack Job. He was more cunning than that. He challenged God's understanding of why Job was righteous and loyal. This caused God to accept the challenge by lifting some of His protection over Job to prove Job's loyalty and righteousness.

Originally posted by divegeester
This has come up in another thread and needs calling out here.

In Job, satan had to ask permission to attack Job. Do you think this is a precedent?

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Sounds to me like God controls everything which is in line with an omnipotent God but you interpret as you wish.

Originally posted by RJHinds
As I understand it, Satan did not ask permission to attack Job. He was more cunning than that. He challenged God's understanding of why Job was righteous and loyal. This caused God to accept the challenge by lifting some of His protection over Job to prove Job's loyalty and righteousness.

Yes you are correct. Satan did not ask God to do the things he did. The author of this post missed that point?

Originally posted by divegeester
This has come up in another thread and needs calling out here.

In Job, satan had to ask permission to attack Job. Do you think this is a precedent?

I think later in Job, God basically tells job that such questions are not for man to ask.

You can't just have 'good' without 'bad'. As with all other polarities.

If everything was just fine and everything was just easy and happy 'n' such in life, we would not have made all the efforts that are required to better ourselves , the human race , all life and the planet. These efforts are requirement for evolution (physical and spiritual).
We would still be amoebas .

Originally posted by karoly aczel
You can't just have 'good' without 'bad'. As with all other polarities.

If everything was just fine and everything was just easy and happy 'n' such in life, we would not have made all the efforts that are required to better ourselves , the human race , all life and the planet. These efforts are requirement for evolution (physical and spiritual).
We would still be amoebas .

Yes, but you're talking about a different kind of 'good' and 'bad' here - more natural than moral. Am I right?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
You can't just have 'good' without 'bad'. As with all other polarities.

If everything was just fine and everything was just easy and happy 'n' such in life, we would not have made all the efforts that are required to better ourselves , the human race , all life and the planet. These efforts are requirement for evolution (physical and spiritual).
We would still be amoebas .

Actually... why not?

Say you put human experience of good and bad on a scale of...
-10 [ultimate pain] through 0 [neutral] to +10 [orgasm?]

It can be argued that there has to be a range of experience, that
'ultimate happiness' for ever would loose meaning, and specialness
because there was no contrast.


However there is plenty enough contrast between 0 and +10 without
needing the range of unpleasantness from 0 to -10.

Do we really need 'bad' to contrast good?

Don't we just need degrees of good, from neutral to awesome?


As for motivation... Life doesn't need to be unpleasant to be motivating.

We can act to prevent suffering that might occur without needing to
actually suffer it.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Yes, but you're talking about a different kind of 'good' and 'bad' here - more natural than moral. Am I right?

I did mention 'all other polarities' as well as putting inverted commas around "good" and "bad". But yes, my wording may have been a bit dodgy for some there.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Actually... why not?

Say you put human experience of good and bad on a scale of...
-10 [ultimate pain] through 0 [neutral] to +10 [orgasm?]

It can be argued that there has to be a range of experience, that
'ultimate happiness' for ever would loose meaning, and specialness
because there was no contrast.


However there is plenty enough cont ...[text shortened]... ng.

We can act to prevent suffering that might occur without needing to
actually suffer it.

As you mentioned with "neutral to awesome", there needs to be something relative and "bad" could easily be used as a term to describe "neutral" in the future, as is evidenced by the quickly changing meanings of some words. (Remember When Michael Jackson made "bad" into a "tough" word, like something one should desire? )

Originally posted by caissad4
A precedent and a direct contradiction. In the OT it is stated that god will not allow evil in his presence. Either Satan is not evil or god is not omnipresent (or both).

Or possibly you don't understand all versions of what "presence" means...?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
You can't just have 'good' without 'bad'. As with all other polarities.

If everything was just fine and everything was just easy and happy 'n' such in life, we would not have made all the efforts that are required to better ourselves , the human race , all life and the planet. These efforts are requirement for evolution (physical and spiritual).
We would still be amoebas .

Why not? Who says so?

I don't really care to be honest.

Originally posted by JS357
I think later in Job, God basically tells job that such questions are not for man to ask.

Not sure it was actually 'that' question if memory serves.