Evidence in a religious forum

we dont

It does seem to say more about the author than the Yahweh. I agree absolutely about the ending however. It is unsatisfactory that the answer is "don't question me when I torment you!"

Of course it is not God doing the tormenting. It is Satan.  But that point does not even register in this discussion.  In fact God actually limits what Satan might have done because he loved Job

Oh for fs stop it!  This is simple desperation of you trying to excuse the inexcusable.  All the actions of Satan - who had once been sentenced to crawl on his belly eating dirt for all his days  but now  suddenly just walking around free as a bird - were sanctioned by god himself, no matter how you want to spin it. God stood by and watched all that Satan was allowed to do BY GOD himself and at the end god more or less told job to stop whining.  And I suppose the commandment of "thou shalt no kill " didn't apply to Satan here either! Exodus 20:13 King James Version.

 In the story of Job we do have a god that actually did know the out come. He did know  that his most loyal and faithful servant wouldn't let him down and he did know  he would remain faithful, but killed these ten children anyway.  It was simply far beyond any and  all mental torture for the hell of it.

 It  is said the children were replaced by more children. Well this simply shows how cheap life is to the megalomaniac god , doesn't it.

And you haven't explained why a god would need to prove anything to anyone? A god, it appears that felt he  had to prove something ( how great he was) to a literal lowlife belly crawling serpent that had been condemned years before to eat dirt for the rest of its life? 

I am not going to stop just because you dislike it. 

I do not understand why God was ok with the killing of the 10 children nor do I actually think he was ok with it.

  I do not believe it God thought life was cheap. 

This goes against the rest of the Bible.

I certainly see the lessons provided in this story. And I have to say that I still see God as the hero in this text.

  I see Satan as the bad dude.

I see God as the one who vindicates.I see Job as the one who is vindicated.

I see his friends as people who saw the world wrongly.  I see Job's family as victims. But not victims of God, but of Satan

Satan wanted to find faults with God's logic.

I don't think that this was about proving anything to Satan,

- but you know what, I think the fact that you want to prove yourself right is something that is important to you.

I think you are wrong. Very Wrong and that story of Job is a great example if God's love and compassion. 

Because I'm not of the opinion that two wrongs make a right or that the ends necessarily justify the means and also because melting the faces of civilians with nuclear fire and radiation just doesn't sit right with me.

Yes indentured servitude existed in Hebrew society for other hebrews but non hebrews could be bought, sold, owned and passed down as inheritance. Two different standards existed. One for hebrews and one for everyone else. The morality of keeping indentured hebrew servants, of which I am not necessarily convinced of, aside the ownership of non hebrews is what I'm actually referring to.

In your Hiroshima analogy, aren't you kind of creating a false dichotomy: either nuclear fire melting the faces of civilians and leadership alike, OR no action at all? Seems to me that there's a lot of intermediate steps one might be able to take in order to check the outcome of the conflict.

And that analogy alone is an interesting thought experiment, but to relate it back to the ropic of a god, Allied Leadership would have had to have the option to simply "delete" the bad actors in Japan, or rewinding time to go back to before Japan even attacked, or to rewind to where the causes that led to their attacking the US could be satisfactorily ameliorated (in other words, they have ALL options, even those that are not available to real world beings, because they are literally all powerful). If the Allies have THIS option...

...is it moral for them to say "Yeah, we could do that, but I'd rather drop two atomic bombs on thousands of residents who have absolutely nothing to do with any of this"?

Since you're here, I may as well ask though, do you feel that you could have prevented another attack from Japan if you had been in charge back then?

I honestly don't understand any of this.

If you went back in time, had the opportunity to prevent the purchase of foreign, they probably would say thanks, but no thanks.

??? How the hell would I even begin to make this calculation? What's the relevance?

Let me try to explain a little better. My read of your invocation of the Hiroshima idea, wherein the US dropped bombs on Japan, is that for humans, often, the ends justify the means. I"m not categorically opposed to the idea as a concept, but it's not at all related to anything to do with the divine. The god you believe in, for example? I've seen explanations that the genocides he orders are because he has to, in order to affect some greater end. This argument is poor as it comes to the morality of the character god in question, because it disregards the fact hat the Amlekites, for example, were by necessity also created by god, and that he had other options available to him besides "Send the hebrews in their to slaughter them to the last lamb." In other words, he didn't have to kill the Amalekites, AT ALL. In fact, he never has to kill anything: he could simply rewind time, delete the faulty line in the program, and rerun it, no one would be the wiser. This option is not available

in the real world, and thus, the ends justify the means is a valid argument in some cases. If there are UNLIMITED means, truly unlimited, would it ever be justified to kill someone else, no matter the reason?

Wow. 

If you're of the opinion that we should have been passive,

The position of the owner is take care of their servants. 

Under what circumstances would you kiss your friend for admitting to unashamedly fantasize over your spouse?

Cancer is a non-contagious disease. You can't give someone Cancer.

Life results in death. Some people die of Cancer at an older age than some who die of natural causes. Disease is a result of our life's conditions.

It's all about why didn't God just make everything wonderful! Problem free! 

I am not necessarily. You seem to think that the lesser of two evils is not evil. I simply disagree. In any case melting the faces of innocent civilians may have been overdoing it just a tad, no?

Does that mean you would be willing to be one my property? To have mr beat you so long as you don't die? To have your family remain my property even if I did deign to free you?

I could expose you to dangerous substances. Or you could expose yourself to them. I mean if it meant getting stronger. In any case don't you believe that the Yahweh can give people cancer? Is that beyond an omnipotent being? I am unimpressed with any god(s) who are ostensibly less powerful than asbestos. 

If the bible is to be believed life's conditions are a result of the Yahweh's perfect and unalterable plan.

So, what's the answer, do you think? 

How could it be evil if it may have saved many more lives?

As long as I can afford to take care of my own family after being released from 7 year servitude,

Would you kiss a serial killer if he were cute?

Not sure what you're getting at. But yes, God does have the power to give someone cancer.

Yahweh's plan is for salvation for those willing to receive it.

Again this standard applies only to hebrews. Non hebrews were property for life. Please stop trying to conflate the two separate standards. Also it says nothing in leviticus about not being able to buy any person whatever not just theive's and debtors.

This is a huge jump. What does this have to do with thought crime? Serial murder is an actual crime.

And conversely to prevent it and yet innocent people still get cancer.

My belief in the Yahweh is divorced from any such willingness and would need to be discussed separately and yet disbelief according to the bible is enough to convict me. Your statement is demonstrably false.