Jeffrey Dahmer

Originally posted by ChessPraxis
HoH makes zombies, here's the evidence!
Clan 24350

Muhaha, every one a living corpse!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Forgetting is one thing, choosing not to remember quite another.

Who said anything about God not being able to prevent evil? Why must you subject God to your own vision like ol Epicurus? Have you never read the Biblical account of Job, how God permitted evil to befall him? Was God not able to prevent that evil, hardly, because it raised certa ...[text shortened]... his integrity, despite that adversity, thus you have, in a microcosm, what is a universal issue.

Job is the worst story in "The Book".

For example, let's say my brother says something like "Your kids don't really like you, how about we make you look bad and see if they still like you. How about you smash all their toys and see if they still love you!"

Quite simply, I wouldn't need to prove my child's love for me to someone like my brother. God should have told Satan to TAKE A LEAP!~

God was duped. What a really stupid story.

P-

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Job is the worst story in "The Book".

For example, let's say my brother says something like "Your kids don't really like you, how about we make you look bad and see if they still like you. How about you smash all their toys and see if they still love you!"

Quite simply, I wouldn't need to prove my child's love for me to someone like my brother. God ...[text shortened]... ld have told Satan to TAKE A LEAP!~

God was duped. What a really stupid story.

P-

=============================
Job is the worst story in "The Book".

For example, let's say my brother says something like "Your kids don't really like you, how about we make you look bad and see if they still like you. How about you smash all their toys and see if they still love you!"

Quite simply, I wouldn't need to prove my child's love for me to someone like my brother. God should have told Satan to TAKE A LEAP!~

God was duped. What a really stupid story.
===================================

I recall secular sources saying that the book of Job was the greatest poetry in human history.

It seems that some thought rather highly of this book, not even necessarily Christians.

Job is tremendous reading. For one, like Ecclesiastes, it gives man equal time to get in his complaints about life and his relationship to God.

I mean for 30 or more chapters Job is knocking down one religious argument after another and gets some pretty good shots at God's way of handling his case.

It is quite interesting that such a book was recognized as part of the canon of divinely inspired books. And non-Christians have discribed it was world class poetry.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=============================
Job is the worst story in "The Book".

For example, let's say my brother says something like "Your kids don't really like you, how about we make you look bad and see if they still like you. How about you smash all their toys and see if they still love you!"

Quite simply, I wouldn't need to prove my child's love f divinely inspired books. And non-Christians have discribed it was world class poetry.

[/b]Thanks for weighing in, but don't you think the story would have been better if God told Satan to take a hike? Why did God need to prove anything to Satan?

P-

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Job is the worst story in "The Book".

For example, let's say my brother says something like "Your kids don't really like you, how about we make you look bad and see if they still like you. How about you smash all their toys and see if they still love you!"

Quite simply, I wouldn't need to prove my child's love for me to someone like my brother. God ...[text shortened]... ld have told Satan to TAKE A LEAP!~

God was duped. What a really stupid story.

P-

nope that a total misinterpretation of the account.

It raises the universal issue of whether a person can love God on principle alone, in other words, that we do not love simply because of what we receive in return, but for who or what God is (this was the accusation that Satan levelled against God, that Job only loved him when things were going well, take away those things and his love will diminish). I think its a basic failure to understand these kinds of themes which make people say such things about scripture. Not only that, it explains, to an extent, that God permits suffering, if it can settle an issue.

Also it explains that it is possible, under extreme pressure to keep ones integrity, if ones motive is pure, thus despite Jobs self righteousness, and despite his false comforters, despite the trauma, and despite being chastised by God while in a state of suffering, healing occurred and Job came through with his integrity in tact.

I can only conclude that you deem such lofty ideals as stupid because you subject it to your own standard of morality, rather than letting the book speak for itself. Its a beautiful account with much wisdom if one views it spiritually.

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Thanks for weighing in, but don't you think the story would have been better if God told Satan to take a hike? Why did God need to prove anything to Satan?

P-[/b]

=====================================
Thanks for weighing in, but don't you think the story would have been better if God told Satan to take a hike? Why did God need to prove anything to Satan?
=====================================

Its a fair question. I am not sure it would have been better.

Satan is a SLANDERER. Satan slanders God to man. And Satan slanders MAN to God.

Now if we were not talking about the highest, most intelligent, powerful, resourceful, wise (in his own evil way) being that God ever created, then a dismissal might do.

But God wants to give this being all the leeway he wants to give it his best shot to overthrow God Himself. In eternity future no one will be able to say "Maybe Satan was right. Maybe God is unjust, plays favorites, and really deserves to be cursed to His face by all His creatures."

God seems to want to take the time to make an eternal example of this being. When He is finished with him, off to the eternal damnation Satan will go.

Think of a chess player who is infinitely wise. You think you can beat him. He gives you every opportunity you can imagine in a million years to checkmate him. In the end you hopelessly go down in defeat at the hands of infinite skill and wisdom.

I don't think there will ever be another Satan when God is finished with him, forever. But no one will be able to say that God did not give him a chance to try his best shot to overthrow the Almighty.

Does that make any sense to you ?

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Thanks for weighing in, but don't you think the story would have been better if God told Satan to take a hike? Why did God need to prove anything to Satan?

P-[/b]

no, for it would have proven nothing, the issue would still have remained, that being, whether a person can love another purely on principle alone, not for what they receive in return. It is exactly the same with God permitting suffering, to destroy the rebels at the very outset would not have proven that independence was folly and that God indeed was being despotic in demanding universal sovereignty.

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Why did God need to prove anything to Satan?

P-[/b]

Just before the Job incident Satan said to God, "You have a mustard stain on your shirt." God looked down, then Satan thumped His nose. 😕

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
God seems to be a real stickler on the technicalities of forgiving

I dont think that King Mannaseh was born again in the sense that born again Christians mean, nor had he put faith in the ransom sacrifice of Jesus, for Christ was not yet manifest. He was truly repentant, from the heart and Gods love was unconditional, this is the point. You can s ...[text shortened]... ome even like wool. . .

God not only forgives, he forgets, which is not the case with humans.

You can see it here on these forums, people are always subjecting God to their own standards of what is good and proper, as if God can be subject to a human.

The main flaw with this statement, until you have proven your particular god exists,Reveal Hidden Contentis that it should read:

You can see it here on these forums, people are always subjecting my formulation of some god to their own standards of what is good and proper, as if my formulation of some god can be subject to a human.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]You can see it here on these forums, people are always subjecting God to their own standards of what is good and proper, as if God can be subject to a human.

The main flaw with this statement, until you have proven your particular god exists,[hidden]take that as a rhetorical challenge - proving your god exists is no more possible than disproving it e ...[text shortened]... what is good and proper, as if my formulation of some god can be subject to a human.[/i][/b]

No its not, that's pure bumf, it merely attempts to mask the scenario in terms of objectivity and subjectivity and FAILS because it makes no account of the practice for either they are subjecting the God of Scripture, that is the personality revealed to them in scripture to their own standards of morality, or they are not. I need not be present, nor my God, nor indeed to prove its existence for this phenomena to happen, indeed, it happens all the time in threads irrespective of these qualifying 'inventions', of yours.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nope that a total misinterpretation of the account.

It raises the universal issue of whether a person can love God on principle alone, in other words, that we do not love simply because of what we receive in return, but for who or what God is (this was the accusation that Satan levelled against God, that Job only loved him when things were going ...[text shortened]... the book speak for itself. Its a beautiful account with much wisdom if one views it spiritually.

If you weren't telling people how wrong they are and how much more you know than they do you wouldn't have much to say would you? It's exhausting trying to apprecaite how good you must be at everything.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
If you weren't telling people how wrong they are and how much more you know than they do you wouldn't have much to say would you? It's exhausting trying to apprecaite how good you must be at everything.

Would this be the appropriate time to point out that you misspelled 'appreciate,' or should I save it for later?

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
If you weren't telling people how wrong they are and how much more you know than they do you wouldn't have much to say would you? It's exhausting trying to apprecaite how good you must be at everything.

Perhaps if you could actually recognise and address the reasons for the assertion you might not need to resort to such , well frankly, petty and ineffectual arguments such as this ad hominen, delivered up like a scrawny piece of cabbage at the bottom of some bowl of Russian Gulag soup.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No its not, that's pure bumf, it merely attempts to mask the scenario in terms of objectivity and subjectivity and FAILS because it makes no account of the practice for either they are subjecting the God of Scripture, that is the personality revealed to them in scripture to their own standards of morality, or they are not. I need not be present, nor ...[text shortened]... , it happens all the time in threads irrespective of these qualifying 'inventions', of yours.

I doubt it...in the midst of conversation people are subjected to your (or some other) theists' interpretation of their holy book, and it is in response to some comment about your (or their) formulation of such a god which inspires the kind of post I responded to.

Infact, even with a standardised interpretation of the Bible (if such could ever be possible) it would still be a formulation of some god based upon the writings of some book you merely have *faith* is true.

You see, when we compare the morality of the god you believe in, and our morality we do so (a) because the morality of the god you believe in is utterly absurd, and (b) we have no rational grounds for thinking it's any more real an entity than, let's see...Thor!?
Would you object to anyone measuring Thor's morality to that of another human!? No you wouldn't.


My point stands.

Originally posted by Agerg
I doubt it...in the midst of conversation people are subjected to your (or some other) theists' interpretation of their holy book, and it is in response to some comment about your (or their) formulation of suvh a god which inspires the kind of post I responded to.

Infact, even with a standardised interpretation of the Bible (if such could ever be possible) ...[text shortened]... e god based upon the writings of some book you merely have *faith* is true.

My point stands.

no they are not, they are rallying against the personality revealed to them in scripture, it has nothing to do with me! making your point, super bumf! For example , God is a genocidal maniac, after they read about the wars with the Canaanite. God is cruel, after they read about his allowing of slavery. God is homophobic after they read about the severe punishments for gays. In each and every instance they are subjecting God, that is the personality revealed to them in scripture, to their own standards of morality. Your point fails, big time, and no amount of posturing will save you this time Agers.

Look at the text above, you demonstrate the very matter at hand, Gods morality is absurd, based on what? your evaluation, in other words, you have simply subjected God to your standards of morality, for what ever reason, rather than try to ascertain why such a position might be taken, by God. its an absurdity in itself, why, for you are human and your experience is limited, not only that, you are prone to aberration, and here you are, pontificating to God!