God, Satan and Job

Tim the Skeptic · Post by **Tim the Skeptic** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 11:43 pm

The book of Job starts out with the "divine beings", including Satan, getting together with God. (OK, this is bizarre considering what I understand of God/Satan relationship, but not my point here.) And then this conversation, as I interpret it, occurs:

God (to Satan): Isn't Job a great guy, he is a blameless and upright man.

Satan: Look at the way he's been blessed by you. Of course, he's a great guy.

God: OK, you can do to his life whatever you want but don't hurt him.

Satan destroys Job's wealth and kills his children. But he did so with God's permission, so, who's responsible? Is God the source of this evil that happens to Job?

trencacloscas · Post by **trencacloscas** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:15 pm

trencacloscas wrote:
Let's call that "excuse".

Sore loser.

Just fond of etymology: 'omni' all / 'potent' powerful. I just don't see the degrees in sucha a monolithic word.

bobfisher · Post by **bobfisher** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:50 pm

Tim the Skeptic wrote:But why do some suffer more than others?

Greater sin, greater need for refinement, or simply God carrying out His plan. When we see a person suffering, we can not know why. We can not say 'you sinned'.

According to Bobfisher, your suffering is made up for by your time in heaven.

True, but it's not that God is compensates you for suffering. The suffering itself is necessary and produces results. Notice the verse below says glory is revealed in you not in heaven.

Rom 8:18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time [are] not worthy [to be compared] with the glory which shall be revealed in us

So does God have to make me suffer in order to make it to heaven?

Yes, to reveal the likeness of God is you.

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together.

If God hasn't granted you enough suffering, do you go to hell?

Hell is a bad translation in the kjv bible. It is translated from four separate words which do not refer to the same place. The vast majority of 'hell' you find in the KJV is from hades (greek) or sheol (hebrew) which are synonyms. These refer to the place or state of the dead soul. Jesus' soul also went to hades.

There is a 'lake of fire' but I do not believe it is what most Christians think. I believe it is a symbol, a spiritual fire representing God's judgment. God calls Himself a 'consuming fire'. What God consumes are the ungodly. But not the flesh of the ungodly. He consumes their ungodliness. He slays there being and resurrects the spirit of Christ in them. God is creating sons in His image -- 'let us make man in our image'. He's not done yet. I believe God's plan is to ultimately restore ALL things (all people) to Himself, including the worst of the worst.

Colosians 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, , whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven. 21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in [your] mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.

bobfisher · Post by **bobfisher** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:48 pm

trencacloscas wrote:Just fond of etymology: 'omni' all / 'potent' powerful. I just don't see the degrees in sucha a monolithic word.

Just because men created a word and stuck 'omni' in front if it doesn't mean that God has to conform to that word. Taken to that degree it leads to immediate logical contradictions, as per Mr Cosby. Even the statement 'God is good' is limiting.

trencacloscas · Post by **trencacloscas** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:06 pm

Sure, but that's only to cop of with lame excuses. Omnipotent means all-powerful. Is God omnipotent or not? If he is not, why call him God? Epicurus still rules.

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:15 pm

trencacloscas wrote:Sure, but that's only to cop of with lame excuses. Omnipotent means all-powerful. Is God omnipotent or not? If he is not, why call him God? Epicurus still rules.

God is omnipotent since the term has only been used to describe a religious depiction of God, and that depiction is generally used to mean that God is all-powerful but still must work around obstacles. Etymology means nothing since many words in the English dictionary no longer mean exactly what their etymological roots suggest. We have to use the term by how it is used in the English-speaking world, and that word generally means something akin to what I labelled "weak omnipotence." The classification of strong, moderate, weak is justified since philosophers have been using these classifications to better describe the phenomenon that they find of interest (e.g., weak and strong supervenience).

bobfisher · Post by **bobfisher** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:13 pm

trencacloscas wrote:Sure, but that's only to cop of with lame excuses. Omnipotent means all-powerful. Is God omnipotent or not? If he is not, why call him God? Epicurus still rules.

Epicurus took four steps to knock down that straw man. Cosby only took one step.
___

bobfisher · Post by **bobfisher** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:28 pm

trencacloscas wrote:Is God omnipotent or not? If he is not, why call him God?

Here are some things the God of the bible can not do.
1. He can not be tempted (James 1:13)
2. He can not lie (Titus 1:2)

According to you this means God is not omnipotent and not worthy of the name 'God'. Apparently it makes more sense to call someone 'God' who falls to temptation.

Tim the Skeptic · Post by **Tim the Skeptic** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:24 pm

Harvey1,

I do not understand this "weak" and "moderate" omnipotence. This is like nailing jello to a wall. This is what I'm hearing.

1. God is omnipotent
2. Omnipotence does not mean that God can do anything logically impossible.
3. We can't know what is logically impossible for God
4. Therefore, God is omnipotent but we really have no clue what that means.

Why bother with this God?

Dilettante · Post by **Dilettante** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:29 pm

harvey wrote:

Let's call that weak omnipotency.

Do I have your permission then to call my less-than-perfect knowledge of all things under the sun "weak omniscience"?

Tim the Skeptic · Post by **Tim the Skeptic** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:54 pm

Bobfisher wrote

1. Silly definition of omnipotence.
2. The God of the bible is not omnipotent by this definiton... "God can not lie" for example.
3. Bill Cosby gave a simpler, airtight argument against this type of omnipotence.

Ok, define omnipotence for God. So far, it doesn't sound like it means anything. What can he do, what can't he do? Can God stop the sun so the Hebrews can slaughter their enemies? When God tells the Hebrews to wipe out every man, woman and child in a town, do all the slaughtered people suffer enough to warrant resurrection?

And what is this Bill Cosby argument? Can you paraphrase it or link to it or something? Just because Bill Cosby said it, doesn't mean it is above debate. Put it out there, and let's have at it.

Debating Christianity and Religion

God, Satan and Job

Who's responsible for what happens to Job

God, Satan and Job