Rock Beyond Belief

[Roll the Bones 74]

So you have decided, with only a subjective morality that has no merit other than what the current conditions ascribe to it as your basis, that the OT is not moral enough to allow for a reason for its position on slavery?Which I guess is why you are silent about the 27 million people living in slavery, and willing to judge how God should instruct a tiny nation living in 6,000 years ago based on your superior 'morality'? ( the one that is conditional and without concrete truths?)I think God should have put rules in the OT about identity theft and tax evasion. Therefore I am superior to what the Bible has to say about everything.

Having just read the OT, I think it's pretty obvious that it was simply some ancient text with some pretty primitive ideas of the world, and that the people of the time had highly questionable morals. I mean they were very superstitious and scientifically illiterate. They supported hate, slavery, castration, and torture. The bible is full of mulitple gods, witches and demons. ( I was actually surprised at the whole devil encounter in the OT as well. God didn't hate him at all and really kind of bantered with him and bet on things, like torturing Job.)BTW, I am curious BG. Why do you believe in that the bible is the word of God?

[Balloon guy 158]

BTW, I am curious BG. Why do you believe in that the bible is the word of God?

I started probably wanting to believe, but holding reservation. I read books written by people who came from the non-believer side to the believer side and read their arguments. I read about the prophecies, and became convinced that there is too much for this to be written by simple folk who didn't know the earth was round. Yes I understand why wanting to believe taints the ability to see the truth without having made a decision, can you guys say you approached the Bible with complete neutrality?Since then I have found my faith to be well placed. I don't fear reading arguments against, and reading the Bible now is a joy, knowing that the purpose of the Book was meant for me.But I did start reading the NT first, had I started with trying to understand why some of the OT things were in there, I would probably been jaded before I got to the NT.I've heard it said before that it seems like God got saved in the NT, like He changed His mannerisms and demands. But when you try to see the whole story, you see a glimpse of understanding the strictness in the OT was purposeful to establish the attitude God has towards sin, and the magnitude of what Grace means.So I don't fault you or anyone for reading the OT and saying: "What the heck?"

[Balloon guy 158]

This is gibberish.

you want to borrow my absolute morality in order to tell me that my morality is flawed, so I am pointing out that your morality is subjective, so it has no stance for judgment.

I'm against slavery.

So am I

I'm not saying that I believe in God and that he is a bad guy. I'm saying that I don't believe that God really wrote the rule that says slave owner can beat their slaves as long as they don't die.

By trying to make the argument that IF God was real He wouldn't do this? That requires you to be above God in order to judge Him.

This is a strawman unrelated to any of my assertions.

Once you get to decide that X is so bad that the only way the Bible can be true is if it agrees with you, then anyone can pick anything to decide that the Bible must meet in order for it to be true.If you get to make declarative statements, than everyone does.

[Balloon guy 158]

( I was actually surprised at the whole devil encounter in the OT as well. God didn't hate him at all and really kind of bantered with him and bet on things, like torturing Job.)

Since you edited your post I didn't see this,But the story of Job is a tough one ( and honestly a long boring book )But in essence you have to go back to God's promise to Abraham, that God would give him all the land he could pace off. So when God asked satan where he has been, satan responded by saying basically, walking around the world that is now mine.So God says: Oh yea? You think so? Have you considered Job?God was telling satan that he didn't have the whole world, and to prove it I have my champion Job to defend my position.All the horrible things that happened to Job were always filtered by God's protection.After satan was smacked down, Job had all his buddies coming up to him telling him why it was Job's fault that bad things happened to him. God then came to Job's defense, telling each of his friends they are idiots, and that Job was way better than they gave him credit for.Then the most interesting part was when Job tried to tell God that he didn't think God was right for letting this happen to him.God's response was: "Who are you to tell Me what to do? Where were you when I put the stars in the sky? Where were you when I created the earth?This really is the most important part of the book, that man isn't in a position to judge God's actions. To pretend we are is a recipe for over stepping the reality of our relationship.God isn't a big one of us, we aren't privy to the perspective of God. Telling an omnipotent Creator how He should conduct Himself is really stupid.Then God gave Job back everything times 3,

[BaseJester 1]

you want to borrow my absolute morality in order to tell me that my morality is flawed, so I am pointing out that your morality is subjective, so it has no stance for judgment.

I don't wish to borrow anything from you.

By trying to make the argument that IF God was real He wouldn't do this? That requires you to be above God in order to judge Him.

Please try to wrap your brain around the concept that it's possible not to first accept the bible as absolute truth and make all arguments based on that.

Once you get to decide that X is so bad that the only way the Bible can be true is if it agrees with you, then anyone can pick anything to decide that the Bible must meet in order for it to be true.

While it's hypothetically possible that there is a God and he apparently likes some people (slave masters and Hebrews) more than other people (slaves and Babylonians), I find it much more plausible that slave masters and Hebrews invented a god with these preferences.

[vbnautilus 48]

Cause Uncle Tom was a good guy in Harriet's book

Yeah it's funny I just learned this today, was looking into some background on the whole Jalen Rose/Grant Hill situation. Seemed like the book character has nothing to do with how people use the phrase today.

Yes I understand why wanting to believe taints the ability to see the truth without having made a decision, can you guys say you approached the Bible with complete neutrality?

I don't really remember clearly since I was so young, but I don't see why I would have had a bias one way or the other at that age. I was sent to Hebrew school to learn this stuff by my family, but the bible and I reacted like oil and water. It was just so absurd on the face of it that it was hard to understand that anyone was believing it. It was like my brother came into my room and told me there was a six-headed monster in his closet. I just told him to go back to bed.

[BaseJester 1]

. . . can you guys say you approached the Bible with complete neutrality?

No. I approached the bible with a desire to believe, having come from a Christian family and community. I went to church until I was about 23.

[Spademan 94]

*Disclaimer: The poster of the following material is highly inebriated and takes no responsibility for the coherence, terseness, style, grammatical efficacy, or ease of flow of the posted text.*Uhm. I don't approach any claim with "neutrality". The default state is null. That is everyone's default state, unless they are taught something and believe it based on authority prior to examining the claims. This is the advantage for people who were fortunate enough to have the importance of skepticism and critical thought taught to them early in life. It doesn't have to be explicitly "taught"... it can be gleaned through extrapolation while happening to read something (or multiple things) that exemplify the process, or by coming into contact with people who engage in critical thought before the person had already been indoctrinated otherwise. If someone says to you, "There is an invisible dragon in my basement", and you are claiming your default state is neutral, you are, by necessity, claiming your process is, "hmm, perhaps there is a dragon in his basement. I remain neutral on that issue." Or someone says, "My blender is broken. I opened it up and not a single part seemed damaged. I suspect it was a Gremlin." Your default position is neutral? Your first thought is, "hmm, perhaps it was a Gremlin. I stand 50/50 on this possibility. Completely neutral. Perhaps true, perhaps false. Therefore equal. Neutral." No. That would be absurd. You would have zero belief in that dragon. He would have to provide evidence for a dragon in his basement. Your position on the second guy would be that he's is an idiot or a lunatic to assume the blender culprit was a Gremlin. He would need to provide a tremendous amount of evidence to convince you otherwise. Let's even take it down a notch. When someone tells me an anecdote about their weekend, I literally do not believe it. I assume much of it may be true, in direct relation to how innocuous their claims... however, I filter what they say, everything, through logic. And when I hear contradiction, I call it to light. Often this ends in, "well, no, I didn't say that exactly" or "no, she didn't rip my clothes off", or, "I don't know how many of them there were exactly, but still, they backed down. Maybe it was only two guys, but it sure seemed like five at the time." Ya buddy, I know. You weren't as clever or pimp or badass or funny or fast as you made yourself out to be. No biggie. But try not to embellish like that in the future with me, because I'll think you're an idiot for trying to get that by me. k? (I wonder why I only have 2 or 3 people whom I consider "friends".) Not filtering claims this way is one of the fundamental failures of most "believers". They go from what they were taught, or that warm fuzzy feeling they attribute to whatever cultural myth they happen to have the most affinity with, and attempt to fit the evidence into that belief. Or, they never learn how to think critically in the first place, so they just have to kind of "go with the flow" of their family, community, friends or culture. They do not examine their nonsense from the null position. They also, contributing to the problem, attribute this same "bias" to someone applying critical thought, reason and logic. "LOL, you go into it thinking NO THERE IS NO GOD/GHOSTS/ALIENS/CONSPIRACY and then ignore ANYTHING that doesn't FIT from there! Everything I say falls on deaf ears because you've already made up your mind. So CLOSED MINDED!"Since they aren't familiar with how critical thought, and in particular logic, works, they don't understand how absurd this is.I treat VB's posts, whom I can remember disagreeing with only twice off hand ("is water wet" and "importantly"), the same as I treat the most absurd trolls on the board. Every one of their posts are examined in exactly the same way. It just so happens that VB is like, never fallacious or illogical (outside of obvious attempts at humor). He never makes claims he can't provide some evidence for, and if he does, he qualifies it as such if asked. I don't see a "VB post" and glaze over it, nodding my head in the affirmative thinking about how similar his "beliefs" are to mine. If I see something I find illogical or unreasonable or off, I challenge it. I just never see it.To lump "atheists" or "skeptics" or people who harp on and on about empirical evidence or critical thought together as some "faith" based group is so fucking ignorant it is beyond description. Every time I read a claim, the process is the same. The first reading is logical. The claimant could be talking/writing about unicorns, bread, god, chickens or John Stamos. How it reads, however, is "It's pretty obvious why x always does y. x is always m, and m is the first step toward y. Everybody knows that."Ok. Ok, pretty weak. If m is the first step toward y, and x is always m, all that can be gathered is that x is always on the first step toward y. That does nothing to explain how x always arrives at y. The claim is incomplete. Then you end with the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. At this point, it doesn't matter what the topic. Literally, it doesn't matter. Whether I would agree with the conclusion based on what I've learned in the past or not. The immediate response is dealing with the incomplete nature of the argument, and to point out the fallacy.This is not a laborious process. When you think critically and utilize logic for the entirety of your adult life, the process happens upon the reading or hearing of the argument. This first glance is where most "supernatural" arguments break down. Before you even get to the claims themselves, the argument breaks down on a purely logical level. Rife with contradiction and fallacy. Then you come across a claim that is internally logically consistent. "All x are y. I am x. Therefore: I am y."Ok. Fair enough. No problemo. Sounds good. Logically, you're valid. Now let's get to the empirical part. Let's take your logically valid claim and examine it in light of what we know about the world through observation and testing."All apples are green.I am an apple. Therefore I am green."Uhm. Uh. Bro'... There are red apples. You aren't an apple. You aren't green. "No, there are no red apples."Shows him a red apple."That isn't red, the dragon made our eyes think some green things were red to deceive us from the truth the fairy mother wants us to know! If you just stopped blinding yourself to this TRUTH and just had sincere FAITH in it, you'd know it was true."This is where the rest of "believers", even some who can engage logic, go wrong. They make supernatural claims with zero evidence, sometimes in the very face of overwhelming evidence (lol evilution amirite?). They can make a fairly sound logical argument, but have the "evidence" and "reality" part all fucked to hell.Or, at their very best, make a conclusion that does not follow fairly strong and reasonable premises (I immediately think of Aquinas and reading him when I was 14 or 15). Usually the "does not follow" conclusion is, therefore: myparticulargod. Like: 1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence. (Well, maybe. The events we can observe within the known universe seem to follow this rule. Go on.) 2. The universe has a beginning of its existence. (Kind of, as we understand it.) 3. Thus the universe has a cause of its existence. (Really? Can you show me the math on that? I didn't think so. That's a fallacy of composition, actually. Yes, according to everything we have observed, everything inside the universe seems to have a cause and effect relationship with a prior event [though there is some rippling in quantum theory that says maybe not]. However, the parts of a set having a property does not mean that property applies to the set itself. For example: every part of a plane is unable to fly. Each panel, cog, instrument, nut, bolt, pane of glass, piece of rubber... not a single part has the ability to "fly". However, because every single part of the plane [the set] cannot fly, does not mean the plane cannot fly. You're attributing a property of the parts of the set to the set itself. Fallacy of composition. But, I'll humor you, go on.) 4. This first un-caused cause must transcend physical reality. (Well, you're kind of making a logical progression. The last step was fallacious, but one thing can be fudged to follow the other if you accept that last little leap there. Empirically, however, this step is meaningless. Also, you've made a leap from, "everything we have observed has had a beginning" to suddenly, "this un-caused thing without a beginning". I assume you're talking about infinite regression being impossible. That is not a priori and therefore isn't a given. But, go on, I'm interested to see where you end up.) 5. This un-caused cause that transcends physical reality is the description of God. (Wait, what? Which God, exactly? That's all you're going to say about the God? Ok, pretty fucking abstract but, whatever. Might as well say "The Cause" or something. "God" carries a lot of baggage, you know. I mean, people attribute all kinds of things to a bunch of different gods. Intelligence, personality, jealousy, anger. You know, a lot of human traits and stuff. Some of them have a bunch of arms and stuff. Lot of weird "gods" out there, you know? So I'd be a little careful there if you are just saying some nebulous, unknown thing caused the universe. k?) 6. Therefore Jesus. (Wait. Wait. What? Seriously man. What the fuck? You tried so hard to be logical about this, and then you end with a blatant non-sequitur? How the fuck does... you know what? Nevermind. Jesus Christ, what a waste of my time. "Thereeefoooore Jeeeeesus". *eyeroll*)Bottom line: we need to add basic logic, critical thought and reasoning classes to youth education. It's a difficult thing, obviously, since we have a great many politicians who "don't believe in evolution", and a shocking number of "young earth" types. People who don't just lack these skills, but who's very deeply held beliefs are threatened by these skills, are responsible for the direction of education. Or able to at least get in the way of such changes to our education system.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

At various times reading that post, I believed that Spademan is Wang, Scram, and Richard Dawkins.

[Spademan 94]

At various times reading that post, I believed that Spademan is Wang, Scram, and Richard Dawkins.

Your beliefs are IRRELEVANT without EVIDENCE, you ASSHOLE! By Zeus, did you even read the post?!Oh, wait, I'm getting fundamentalist about my Church Of Critical Knowledge (COCK)* beliefs. Sorry. *I just made that up. I'm pleased with myself given how drunk I am.

[vbnautilus 48]

At various times reading that post, I believed that Spademan is Wang, Scram, and Richard Dawkins.

When he listed all the times he disagreed with me from memory, I briefly considered that he might be JoeyJoJo.

[Spademan 94]

When he listed all the times he disagreed with me from memory, I briefly considered that he might be JoeyJoJo.

Your BRIEF CONSIDERATIONS are IRRELEVANT without EVIDENCE, you ASSHOLE. On a serious note: break down my drunken post, find flaws, and improve upon it if you can.Or maybe you had your ego stroked when I mentioned you and you were incapacitated by such.(I'm pretty sure my post can't be challenged reasonably, but I want to inflame everybody to try so I can fix any weakness.)

[Spademan 94]

This is a minor digression, but it has to do with "logic", which is something I harped upon in my recent posts.This is an example of what pisses people off who think critically.In response to the politician Gabrielle Gifford being recently shot in Arizona, where I currently live, Mike McNulty, a Congressman, said: "The doctors are pretty clear that we just have to wait and see," and then added, "I can only think that God has more important things planned for her in the future."Via Modus Tollens (if you don't know what that means that's ok, as long as you understand the principle. Before I was ever enrolled in logic classes I operated this way when processing claims. But... if you don't know what modus tollens is, and have never considered the logical progression of this kind of claim, you should get to work learning about it) he is explicitly claiming that the people who actually died during that tragedy did not have important things planned for their future by god. Including a 9 year old girl. God did not have important plans for her. lol.Seriously.What he is saying is that God planned for a psychotic shooter to kill some people, including a 9 year old girl, and shoot Gifford point blank in (only) half of her brain so that she would survive and fulfill an "important plan" he has for her future.One cannot save him by apologizing something about the murdered people going to "heaven" or something.That would necessarily mean that the dead people going to heaven are not part of an important plan. It fails so utterly. But this sort of thing goes unchallenged in our modern US society. It is the reason we in the US are falling so far behind other countries in standard of living, math scores, science scores, and ultimately, relevance. Stop that.You ignorant fucks.

[brvheart 1,752]

This is a minor digression, but it has to do with "logic", which is something I harped upon in my recent posts.This is an example of what pisses people off who think critically.In response to the politician Gabrielle Gifford being recently shot in Arizona, where I currently live, Mike McNulty, a Congressman, said: "The doctors are pretty clear that we just have to wait and see," and then added, "I can only think that God has more important things planned for her in the future."Via Modus Tollens (if you don't know what that means that's ok, as long as you understand the principle. Before I was ever enrolled in logic classes I operated this way when processing claims. But... if you don't know what modus tollens is, and have never considered the logical progression of this kind of claim, you should get to work learning about it) he is explicitly claiming that the people who actually died during that tragedy did not have important things planned for their future by god. Including a 9 year old girl. God did not have important plans for her. lol.Seriously.What he is saying is that God planned for a psychotic shooter to kill some people, including a 9 year old girl, and shoot Gifford point blank in (only) half of her brain so that she would survive and fulfill an "important plan" he has for her future.One cannot save him by apologizing something about the murdered people going to "heaven" or something.That would necessarily mean that the dead people going to heaven are not part of an important plan. It fails so utterly. But this sort of thing goes unchallenged in our modern US society. It is the reason we in the US are falling so far behind other countries in standard of living, math scores, science scores, and ultimately, relevance. Stop that.You ignorant fucks.

Obviously most of us understand your position here, but why is that necessarily true? Of course the congressman is stupid, and what he said should rightly be ridiculed by you, but since the entire topic is mildly allowing for a hypothetical God, why does the important plan have to be tied to their lives on Earth?

[BaseJester 1]

Obviously most of us understand your position here, but why is that necessarily true? Of course the congressman is stupid, and what he said should rightly be ridiculed by you, but since the entire topic is mildly allowing for a hypothetical God, why does the important plan have to be tied to their lives on Earth?

McNulty implied that by using the statement as a response to the question. CNN article

Asked about Giffords' ability to survive a 9mm slug to the head, McNulty said, "I can only think that God has more important things planned for her in the future."

He surely thinks this is a response rather than a random theological statement.You are asking about McNulty's position (rather than ours) on doing 'important things' after death, right?

[brvheart 1,752]

McNulty implied that by using the statement as a response to the question. CNN articleHe surely thinks this is a response rather than a random theological statement.You are asking about McNulty's position (rather than ours) on doing 'important things' after death, right?

It's more of a hybrid than that. I don't care about McNulty's position since it was stupid. I'm saying, in the context of there being an actual God that can use any situation to further his cause, couldn't the "important plan" be something other than the two options that Spade presented?

[BaseJester 1]

It's more of a hybrid than that. I don't care about McNulty's position since it was stupid. I'm saying, in the context of there being an actual God that can use any situation to further his cause, couldn't the "important plan" be something other than the two options that Spade presented?

The answer to your question is yes. Assuming an omnipotent God, he can do stuff by definition.The proposed dichotomy is McNulty's, not Spade's.

[Spademan 94]

As Base has pointed out you're taking issue with McNutty's claim, not mine.His claim is simply that she survived the tragedy because god has important plans for her.Flip the script on that.If she had had died, like the 9 year old, it would mean god didn't have important plans for her.He could have saved himself from this horrible implication by adding "on earth" or something. Leaving the possibility open that the sky wizard can have important plans for those who died in the tragedy, only rather than the mundane, up in The Spectacular and Intangible Space-Disney Fun Land of Worship and Glory to the Man-Behind-The-Curtain Amusement Park of Eternity™. (This isn't to say it would have become reasonable or anything. This common statement, when qualified in this way, leads to every event, no matter how horrible - a young girl being raped, tortured and murdered for example - being part of "Gods important plans". We then run into the both the problem of evil and, awesomely, a contradiction to one of the the most popular rebuttals to the problem of evil, free will.)Or he could have avoided the whole thing altogether by not retreating into magical thinking.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Perhaps McNutty just said what he said in an attempt to ease the pain of those grieving.Perhaps it has as little to with religion as when someone stubs their toe and says goddamnit.

[vbnautilus 48]

Perhaps McNutty just said what he said in an attempt to ease the pain of those grieving.Perhaps it has as little to with religion as when someone stubs their toe and says goddamnit.

This was not a canned exclamation that came out without forethought. It was sentence he put together. Imagine instead,"Asked about Giffords' ability to survive a 9mm slug to the head, McNulty said, "I can only think that Zeus has more important things planned for her in the future."The two statements are equally preposterous, regardless of whether or not he intended to ease someone's pain. If you lost your leg, and I said "Don't worry, the Easter Bunny meant for this to happen." am I excused from ridicule because I was trying to be nice?

[digitalmonkey 929]

This was not a canned exclamation that came out without forethought. It was sentence he put together. Imagine instead,"Asked about Giffords' ability to survive a 9mm slug to the head, McNulty said, "I can only think that Zeus has more important things planned for her in the future."The two statements are equally preposterous, regardless of whether or not he intended to ease someone's pain. If you lost your leg, and I said "Don't worry, the Easter Bunny meant for this to happen." am I excused from ridicule because I was trying to be nice?

Nobody EVER tries to ease anyone's pain by bringing up the Easter Bunny.A child dies and many comment on how they are an angel now. An sick person dies and people comment on how they are in a better place now. I'm not saying it's right or true...it's just something people say. Also, I don't know any of these people, but I think we must consider intent. I don't think he meant any disrespect or had any malicious intent toward the 9-year old girl, he was just commenting on the woman.In the future he should consider saying "different plans" instead of "important plans." Or just be honest and say "I don't know."

[vbnautilus 48]

Nobody EVER tries to ease anyone's pain by bringing up the Easter Bunny.

Speak for yourself, buddy. I can't count the number of times I have been comforted by the Easter Bunny, not even including the hollow chocolate variety.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Since you edited your post I didn't see this,But the story of Job is a tough one ( and honestly a long boring book )But in essence you have to go back to God's promise to Abraham, that God would give him all the land he could pace off. So when God asked satan where he has been, satan responded by saying basically, walking around the world that is now mine.So God says: Oh yea? You think so? Have you considered Job?God was telling satan that he didn't have the whole world, and to prove it I have my champion Job to defend my position.All the horrible things that happened to Job were always filtered by God's protection.After satan was smacked down, Job had all his buddies coming up to him telling him why it was Job's fault that bad things happened to him. God then came to Job's defense, telling each of his friends they are idiots, and that Job was way better than they gave him credit for.Then the most interesting part was when Job tried to tell God that he didn't think God was right for letting this happen to him.God's response was: "Who are you to tell Me what to do? Where were you when I put the stars in the sky? Where were you when I created the earth?This really is the most important part of the book, that man isn't in a position to judge God's actions. To pretend we are is a recipe for over stepping the reality of our relationship.God isn't a big one of us, we aren't privy to the perspective of God. Telling an omnipotent Creator how He should conduct Himself is really stupid.Then God gave Job back everything times 3,

Okay, I suppose we have a ittle different interpretations of what went on in that book. I actually really enjoyed it. The first thing that struck me was that all the good stuff happened in the first couple chapters. I mean, I knew of the basic story but then it all happened so fast I was wondering what the hell was going to take place in the rest of the book? You seem to kind of view the book as, "When bad things happen to good people" kinda story and you portray it as God showing some amazing love by giving Job 3 times what he lost and all. Nothing like that was ever said in the entire book of Job though. It never says anywhere that God was amazing, or altruistic or good or anything like that. But, let's review a little here.If God was so amazing and a such a good guy why would he torture someone like that? Someone he supposedly loved? By all accounts Job was the most righteous dude on earth. Would you do this to your kids? Your wife? I mean, God did. And after he set about the torture of Job, he dissapeared for the next 36 CHAPTERS!. And the important part to you was God's response to Job for questioning all the torture God put him through. Really? God's response was to be a bully. The way he won the arguement was to simply act like an all-powerful principle, master, CEO, or dictator, (take your pick), that suspends his student, or kicks them out of the boardroom, or sends them away and says, "I am all powerful how dare you question me!" Umm, I am questioning your ass because you just spent the last 38 chapters torturing my ass for no goddam reason!! WTF kinda arguement is that? You created moons? Answer my goddam question!But, I suppose God didn't want to respond in a rational manner, because, well, it wouldn't make him look that hot. So back to why he did it. God met with Satan on two occasions. The first he was incited into giving Satan power over anyone and everything under or connected to Job. The second meeting, God was incited (and that is the correct word, I checked), into giving Satan power over Job as well, as long as he didn't kill him. So basically, the Lord was susceptible to suggestions from other what, celestial beings? It never really said who Satan was. But given what we know about Satan, God is obviously susceptible to demons and temptation. So why did God do this? Job 2:3 You incited me against [Job] to ruin him without reason. WITHOUT REASON! That's why God tortured Job, for no good goddam reason!! Does any of this sound familiar? Remember Genesis 3:12-13? God went ape shit on Adam and Eve for this little faux pas. You know, being tempted by satan and all? I mean he sent man from paradise for this little offense yet he isn't any better than dimwitted Adam! So God twice gave into Satan to ruin Job for no good purpose or cause. It never once says in the entire book that God was testing Job's faith. He did it because Satan enticed him into doing it. He let him torture the nicest guy on the planet, for what, a bet? Seriously? And then he goes off on him for even questioning him. I'll give it to the writer though for bringing Job ever so close to the brink by all kinds of new inventive inhumane torture, but Job never does go so far as to "denounce" God. Job, was the much better person in the story by far. God was a bully dolt.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Oh and speaking of Rabbi Kushner's book, he is busy on CNN qutoing the Old Testament about the Book of Kings explaining why antural disastors like Japan happen-Rabbi Harold Kushner, author whose books include “When Bad Things Happen to Good People”

Whenever a disaster like this occurs, I go back to the Bible, to the First Book of Kings. Elijah, in despair over the situation in Israel, runs to the desert, back to Mt. Sinai to find the God of the Revelation to Moses."And lo, the Lord God passed by. There was a mighty wind, splitting mountains and shattering rocks, but the Lord was not in the wind. There was an earthquake but the Lord was not in the earthquake."To me, that is the key: the Lord was not in the earthquake.Natural disasters are acts of nature, not acts of God. God cares about the well-being of good people; Nature is blind, an equal-opportunity destroyer.Where is God in Japan today? In the courage of people to carry on their lives after the tragedy. In the resilience of those whose lives have been destroyed, families swept away, homes lost, but they resolve to rebuild their lives. In the goodness and generosity of people all over the world to reach out and help strangers who live far from them, to contribute aid, to pray for them.How can people do such things if God were not at work in them to lend a counterweight to a natural disaster?

And Sam Harris talked about the subject as well,Sam Harris, author of books including “The End of Faith,” and co-founder and CEO of Project Reason, dedicated to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values

Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn’t care to, or he doesn’t exist. God is either impotent, evil, or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely.The only sense to make of tragedies like this is that terrible things can happen to perfectly innocent people. This understanding inspires compassion.Religious faith, on the other hand, erodes compassion. Thoughts like, “this might be all part of God’s plan,” or “there are no accidents in life,” or “everyone on some level gets what he or she deserves” - these ideas are not only stupid, they are extraordinarily callous. They are nothing more than a childish refusal to connect with the suffering of other human beings. It is time to grow up and let our hearts break at moments like this.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

And Sam Harris talked about the subject as well,

Do you think what he said is interesting or thought-provoking in any way? It seems like a pretty stupid argument in my opinion.