Job: Voter vs Pianodwarf commentary thread

[screwtape]

All commentary regarding the debate belongs here.  Thank you for your cooperation.

[LadyLucy]

Well, I sure can't wait for Voter to bring a great and well-put-together debate to the table!

[Alzael]

Well, I sure can't wait for Voter to bring a great and well-put-together debate to the table!

You'll be waiting a very long time, I'm sure.

[LadyLucy]

So... It's OK for God to let Satan torture Job to prove that Job will stay faithful to him? What in the world? I don't think he is thinking straight... [tangent]Reminds me of how my husband brought up that one time BibleStudent said he'd tell the truth to the Nazis if he was hiding Jews in his basement. [/tangent]

It's like my husband (in another universe) allowed in the end to have one angry ex-boyfriend of mine torture me horrendously (in the alternate weird universe) to prove that I'd still love my husband and would not think badly of my husband for allowing it to happen regardless. Wouldn't that make him, my alternate-world husband, an asshole? I think so. Why wouldn't I? "He lets it happen because he truly cares, loves, and believes in me so deeply that I shouldn't be mad at him, nor think any less of him, nor doubt him"?

Fuck the alternate-world husband.

[Alzael]

He seems to be setting himself up for two smackdowns in a single day.

I still find it interesting that after all of his claims about how you can punish and threaten someone and still love them, Voter never responded to the repeated questions about whether or not he would torture his loved ones for eternity.

If he backed away from it then, I wonder if he actually realizes that he's setting himself up for the exact same thing now.

[LadyLucy]

He seems to be setting himself up for two smackdowns in a single day.

I still find it interesting that after all of his claims about how you can punish and threaten someone and still love them, Voter never responded to the repeated questions about whether or not he would torture his loved ones for eternity.

If he backed away from it then, I wonder if he actually realizes that he's setting himself up for the exact same thing now.

[My bold]

He's too daft to understand the bolded statement. He thinks it's completely different from the real world, as if nothing should be applied to them the same way. But why not? What's stopping his little thinking train? Being in fear of doubting God? By already making several posts that were disproving God, he might as well; don't understand how he could not answer a direct, simple question...

[Anfauglir]

Hang about....

Resolved: The treatment of Job and his family by the Christian God (as described in the Biblical book Job) was monstrous.

To really cut it down: God would receive honor and glory if Job maintained his faith despite suffering, so he let Satan torture Job. God put his own pleasure and glory ahead of Job’s suffering.

I thought Voter was AGAINST the resolution?  He seems to be arguing FOR it.....?

Unless he is now going to redefine "monstrous".....

[Alzael]

^^^^  He's jumping around again.

[Azdgari]

I guess it comes down to the question, "is divinely justified torture monstrous?"

[Ivellios]

I guess it comes down to the question, "is divinely justified torture monstrous?"

Well, he seems to think that taking your child, driving some spikes thru their hands and feet and hanging them for hours proves the father loves you. Death is irrelevent because he knew beforehand he'd raise from the dead.

"Do as I say, not as I do!"

God can commit the most horrendous barbaric atrocity known, and it's perfectly fine, in fact, it proves he loves you and there can be nothing better, because no matter whatever it was that he did.... [it] was PERFECTLY justified.

Of course, he'd change his tune if it happened to him and not some nobody from 2000+ years ago. It'd never happen to me! Oh, and God takes pleasure in it too! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Take THAT Job! Hahahahaha! woooweee!

[Aaron123]

Concerning Voter's last post; if letting someone's family get killed isn't monstrous, I don't know what is.  Voter is also ignoring the part in the book about Job being upright and "blameless".  I wonder where he read that Job suffered because he didn't give to the poor.  All I read was something about god making a bet with his gambling buddy.   

[Alzael]

Concerning Voter's last post; if letting someone's family get killed isn't monstrous, I don't know what is.  Voter is also ignoring the part in the book about Job being upright and "blameless".  I wonder where he read that Job suffered because he didn't give to the poor.  All I read was something about god making a bet with his gambling buddy.   

Voter admits that he's never read the bible fully before, this story is most likely one of the parts that he hasn't read.

[Voter]

Voter admits that he's never read the bible fully before,

???

[LadyLucy]

Voter admits that he's never read the bible fully before,

???

You should be busy debating rather focusing on observations from other members. And if you were wondering, go ahead and answer since you decided to come in here: Did you read the Bible in full, and not just cherry-picked passages?

[Alzael]

Ah, my mistake. I read something wrong. He didn't say such a thing where I thought he had.

However it still remains that it's completely clear that he either hasn't, or has and just ignores most of it when it suits him.

[Aaron123]

What troubles me is how he thinks(apparently) that it's OK to kill people because they didn't give enough to the poor.

Granted, I've seen a lot of Crazy Christian Commets at this point, but sometimes, I'm at a lost for words.

[Alzael]

What troubles me is how he thinks(apparently) that it's OK to kill people because they didn't give enough to the poor.

What I find interesting is that he would apparently view it as an acceptable form of love to torment his own children for all of eternity. I think that says more about him and how he works than everything else that he's said.

[Voter]

What I find interesting is that he would apparently view it as an acceptable form of love to torment his own children for all of eternity. I think that says more about him and how he works than everything else that he's said.

???

[Alzael]

A masterfully-crafted response.

[Asmoday]

I guess quoting something and then "replying" to it by posting "???" is Voter's new approach to the dilemma "I want to say something but if I make a reply I have to participate in the discussion when people have a closer look at what I've said." His solution seems to be to reply by not actually replying.

He just quotes the passage he takes offense with and let's others fill in the blanks without him getting his feet wet, so to say.

I wonder if he plans on using this technique in the 1-on-1 debates, too.

[Timo]

I don't think we're off to much of a start here.  Voter, you're not really pointing out a case of special pleading.  You are instead committing the tu quoque version of the ad hominem.  You've done nothing to actually defend God's behavior.

Still, your case is weak even if all you intended to show was hypocrisy.  To begin with, we are not God.  We are limited in our time and our resources.  What limits does God have?  We have needs and wants.  What needs and wants do God have?  And unlike God, no one would argue that everything that we as humans do is always right.  I know that I don't do enough to help those less fortunate than myself.  But I also recognize that I am, if nothing else, human.  And I am therefore flawed.  It shouldn't surprise anyone that I fall short.  Is God flawed?  Why should He fall short?

And this:

My argument fails if you can show a relevant difference, but I’ve never seen it done. The knee-jerk reaction is to say that God has greater resources and could stop all suffering, but that also is a special pleading. You presumably don’t argue that only the current richest man on earth is responsible for relieving suffering in his fellow man.

This is shockingly bad argumentation.  To begin with, on theism, God is solely responsible for the existence of suffering since He is solely responsible for the existence of everything and knew that there would be suffering from the outset.  Therefore, if we should start assigning responsibility to anyone for the task of relieving suffering, we should start with God.  Furthermore, I think that most of us would agree that those with the means to help others have a greater responsibility to help others than those of us that don't.  I don't think that most of us would claim, for example, that we should expect you and Bill Gates to give the same amount of money to charity.  No matter how dedicated you are to helping others, we would expect that Bill Gates would give more because he has orders of magnitude more to give.  God has infinitely more to give than that even.  So what should we expect from Him?

But I suppose the better point is this.  With Job, we aren't even talking about the failure of God to relieve suffering as a means to glorify Himself.  We're talking about the imposition of suffering to that end.  And so I don't think this business about charity is exactly relevant.  The issue isn't a failure to give something.  The issue is the taking of something.  And in this case, that something that He's taking isn't just material.  He took lives.


Peace

[Ivellios]

Still, your case is weak even if all you intended to show was hypocrisy.  To begin with, we are not God.  We are limited in our time and our resources.  What limits does God have?  We have needs and wants.  What needs and wants do God have?  And unlike God, no one would argue that everything that we as humans do is always right.  I know that I don't do enough to help those less fortunate than myself.  But I also recognize that I am, if nothing else, human.  And I am therefore flawed.  It shouldn't surprise anyone that I fall short.  Is God flawed?  Why should He fall short?

God isn't flawed, he only falls short because he can and since he's god, it's his self-given Right! 

This is shockingly bad argumentation.  To begin with, on theism, God is solely responsible for the existence of suffering since He is solely responsible for the existence of everything and knew that there would be suffering from the outset.  Therefore, if we should start assigning responsibility to anyone for the task of relieving suffering, we should start with God.  Furthermore, I think that most of us would agree that those with the means to help others have a greater responsibility to help others than those of us that don't.  I don't think that most of us would claim, for example, that we should expect you and Bill Gates to give the same amount of money to charity.  No matter how dedicated you are to helping others, we would expect that Bill Gates would give more because he has orders of magnitude more to give.  God has infinitely more to give than that even.  So what should we expect from Him?

Of course we shouldn't expect anything of/from him. He has riches beyond imagination. He takes delight in people's suffering... after all it only glorifies him! We limited finite humans should be held responsible when we do not reach out to those less fortunate. Even those who have nothing[1] are expected to give while God can and does withold.

But I suppose the better point is this.  With Job, we aren't even talking about the failure of God to relieve suffering as a means to glorify Himself.  We're talking about the imposition of suffering to that end.  And so I don't think this business about charity is exactly relevant.  The issue isn't a failure to give something.  The issue is the taking of something.  And in this case, that something that He's taking isn't just material.  He took lives.


Peace

If he is all-powerful and benevolent, whence commeth evil?

The whole Job affair only shows to me, that God is a sick sadist.

Despite Pro-Lifer's claim to the "Sanctity of Life," and that it's "God's Will" I've wondered what book they were reading because in the Bible I've read, God doesn't give 2 ****s about human life, or any life for that matter. Sending a plague to wipe out 70k(?) people because 1 person's "mistake" when that person himself stated that only he[2] should suffer shows how casual God is at taking lives, and that humans have better morals than a "perfect" god. He takes a wife, he "replaces" a wife. He takes 10 kids, he "replaces" 10 kids. It's all the same to him. A Christian may try to claim they were the exact same people, but we know that isn't the case.

1.	the widow from NT.
2.	David.

[Voter]

I guess quoting something and then "replying" to it by posting "???" is Voter's new approach to the dilemma "I want to say something but if I make a reply I have to participate in the discussion when people have a closer look at what I've said." His solution seems to be to reply by not actually replying.

He just quotes the passage he takes offense with and let's others fill in the blanks without him getting his feet wet, so to say.

[Aaron123]

Pianodwarf once again thrashes voter's comments.

Yet somehow, I think Voter's respond will amount to little more than "it is TOO special pleading!!!11!"

[Alzael]

I guess quoting something and then "replying" to it by posting "???" is Voter's new approach to the dilemma "I want to say something but if I make a reply I have to participate in the discussion when people have a closer look at what I've said." His solution seems to be to reply by not actually replying.

He just quotes the passage he takes offense with and let's others fill in the blanks without him getting his feet wet, so to say.

If all you're going to do is make a post to say that you're not going to make a post. Don't bother to make the post. You look a lot less like an idiot, and a lot less like a petulant child that way.

Pianodwarf once again thrashes voter's comments.

Yet somehow, I think Voter's respond will amount to little more than "it is TOO special pleading!!!11!"

Probably. I expect either he'll stick to this and cling to his reasoning even though it's been obviously torn apart. Or just retreat into an endless stream of excuses. He doesn't seem used to actually having his ideas scrutinized, as evidenced by the arguments that he makes. It looks like I'll win the bet at this rate.

[Aaron123]

From Voter's lastest post:

God would receive honor and glory if Job maintained his faith despite suffering, so he let Satan torture Job. God put his own pleasure and glory ahead of Job’s suffering.

then...

If it’s wrong to put one’s pleasure ahead of the suffering of others, than it’s wrong for you to put your pleasure ahead of the suffering of others, period – it doesn’t matter what God does.

then...

Third, you don’t have to be satisfied with what little you’re doing to help if you expend any resources at all on your own pleasure and/or glory. Until you’ve given it all up, you shouldn’t be satisfied, or should admit that by your own criteria you’re monstrous.

It's clear by Voter's own standards, his god is a monster, since he puts his own pleasure and glory ahead of someone's suffering. 

Actually;  he puts his pleasure and glory at the expense of someone's suffering, which is even worse.

[jetson]

It's clear by Voter's own standards, his god is a monster, since he puts his own pleasure and glory ahead of someone's suffering. 

Actually;  he puts his pleasure and glory at the expense of someone's suffering, which is even worse.

God gets a free pass on anything and everything.  And every chapter and verse gets to be interpreted by the believer in whatever way best supports their position.  There is practically nothing Piandowarf can say that would refute the delusion of Voter, but I digress.

This is the painful reality of the delusion of religion, and its strangle hold on rational and clear thinking.  That an ancient book, written by people who had very little understanding of how things work, can remain useful in modern times, is a testament to the idea that debates such as these are fruitless in general.

I think the best that can come from them, is the possibility that at least one "fence-sitter" believer, or non-believer might see the inanity of it all, and jump to the rational side - atheism.

[Azdgari]

Several things bug me about this debate:

1. All the personality references/attacks.  Voter's the main culprit here, but Pianodwarf isn't innocent either.  These things are irrelevant to the debate and should be pointedly ignored.  Neither party is successfully doing that.

2. Ground rules needed to be set early on, but weren't.  For instance, what would constitute a monstrous act for a god to perform?  What are the qualifying parameters for monstrosity?  This is left unstated, but needs to be spelled out.  Otherwise, one can simply change the definition of "monstrous" so that the act(s) in question qualify (for Pianodwarf's side) or don't (for Voter's side).

3. Clear context.  This whole debate is about the account given in the book of Job.  That means that some Christian (or at least Jewish) theology is being granted for the sake of argument, because they're true in the story.  Comments like "that's nonsensical for an atheist to say" have no place in this debate because of that.  Pianodwarf is (supposed to be) making an argument about the events in the story, not about real gods.  Both sides acknowledge that the story exists and can agree on what it says, so that's all that's necessary.

[Ivellios]

The law has conditions in which Slaves are to be freed.

Like: (paraphrased) When you sell your son as a slave he is to serve for six years and be released on the seventh. If you sell your daughter as a slave, the man buying her intends to have sex with her, so make certain you get a good bride price for her because women are only worth something when thier hymen is intact, therefor her sale is for life. If the man is not pleased with her after popping her cherry, he must let her go with proper divorce papers, he can not sell her now since she is worthless.

There are no conditions in the Bible supporting what went on that is known as "The Underground Railroad."