Job 38 Verse 1-7

Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said,
Who is this that darkened council by words without knowledge?
Gird up thy loins like a man;for I will demand of thee, and answer thou thee.

Where was thou when I laid the foundation of the earth?
declare if thou has understanding.

Who hath laid the measures thereof , if thou knowest?or hath stretched the line upon it?

Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened?Or who laid the cornerstone thereof?

When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shout for joy?

Chapter 38 tells us God asks Job where he was when he laid the foundations of the earth..and the marvels of nature testifies the greatness and authorship of God and weakness of Man.


Job 41

God explains to Job that all things under the heavens are his.



Again angy I reiterate you are judging a being from an extremely limited mortal perspective.

Are you greater than God? Do you have infinite knowledge of the entire cosmos and beyond?

Do you have the power and knowledge to give life and take life? For all things, even life and death are under his power and authority. Therefore, he has the right to judge those youths.

If you have the capacity to create stars, galaxies and worlds without number and know them all individually..put every all kinds of liforms upon a world...fill it with all manner of plants, animals etc..in almost every niche..in the sea, in the air and upon the land... if you have the capacity to give life and to take it...

Then you can judge God...because you would then be like Him.

But the reality is you and I are not God.Therefore we do not the capacity to know his ways and his judgements for we cannot see the whole picture as he can.

As far as how miner keeps talking about "our limited mortal perspectives," what exactly is he trying to say, I wonder?

Is he just saying that we're not gods? That we're not infallible, and we might be wrong?

Well, that's true, of course, but I would just say that because a person might be wrong does not mean they are.

You can also say that it is "presumptuous" to judge what a person is saying when they mention some sort of godly being, but while you might think it's inappropriate, I don't. As far as judging god itself, first off, there need not (not in any sense) be a god.
And two, even if this godly being thought it was inappropriate (presumptuous) that I should judge it, well......I wouldn't necessarily agree, though I might perhaps (by what a god is supposed to be) be compelled to.

And again, you seem to be trying to say that these children were pure evil or something (at least, that would, It would seem, justify killing them brutally, under Christianity)





But again, in that case, I would just say that you can always interpret a text to suit any particular purpose.

And also that I don't think that kind of evil actually exists. I certainly have never, ever, encountered it.

Lastly......just to make this clear.....you don't actually think, miner, that it's right to kill teenagers* for mockery, it's mostly just that you don't feel it's appropriate to judge a hypothetical in which your god is mentioned? Or that you think, cuz it's supposed to be your god doing this, that there must be a good reason for setting the bears on them, just because it's your god?

Because all everyone here has been saying is that there would appear to be no good reason why mocking children should be killed. And it would appear that you also have no good reason for it. If you're just insisting that there must be a good reason, well, unless you give it explicitly, it's hard to comment on that.

(Though It would seem that you suggested that these children be evil, with blackened hearts, or whatever as a justification for their murder..... if that's what you're suggesting, see the recent post)

No, I am not. I can accept that sometimes the best course of action is the more violent and destructive one (e.g. the war against Nazism, the defense of the Falkland Isles from a Fascist invasion (though I'll never support Thatcher or her government), Viet Cong guerilla tactics to liberate homelands, brutalities inflicted upon the Confederacy by the Union in the US Civil war etc) but if a being is powerful enough to not have to inflict genocides or torture yet does, he is immoral.



I am not the most moral person in the world, I err, but I'd say that I am greater than YHWH (I refuse to call him ''god'', a pre-Christian word) when it comes to morality. I'd never caste people into hell for an eternity nor would I cause a Middle-Eastern holocaust against Amorites and other groups that the ancient Hebrews didn't like. Nor would I pick one group (Hebrews) to be ''my people'' when I created all people.



No I don't, but I'd argue that YHWH should be above petty jealousy and violence if he did indeed have infinite knowledge. With infinite knowledge should come infinite wisdom and infinite compassion. YHWH has neither of those things.



Doesn't really paint him as a moral being at all. He takes life at the drop of a hate. He is a vile and sadistic being and the fact that anyone worships him in the modern world is quite depressing.



No I, mere mortal as I am, can indeed judge YHWH because his morality is flawed no matter how you spin it. A god with infinite powers should not have to resort to violence. Fact.



Ah, the usual ''we do not know his ways'' Christian talk. Well, to be honest, I do not want to know his ways if he thinks that killing living beings to satisfy his bloodlust is moral or good. Sorry, YHWH is evil, his actions are evil. We can call hate ''love'' and cruelty ''mercy'', but it would not change that they are just hate and cruelty under different names. Either YHWH has the right to commit genocides and abuse his ''children'', in which case he is evil and evil is right, or he is abusing his powers as a deity and should really be replaced (if a heavenly revolution were impossible...which, according to the Bible, is not so).

If Satan did the same thing, Christians would claim it is an evil act (even if the situation was exactly the same). They'd claim that Satan has no right to take a life or that he killed them unjustly for a minor offense. Christianity is such a hypocritical faith.

If the story mentioned was part of the Vedas or the Upanishads, Christians would use it as proof that Hindu gods are evil.

Is the statement false?

There would seem to be little beyond an emotional reaction being revealed in this particular section of text (where it applies to me), and since the normal application of anger is to stop your target from doing, whatever it is they are doing, I just hope you don't use the word "tolerance" to mean "the making of certain topics forbidden."

You could not be more full of yourself if you tried. And the harder you work at sounding "intellectual," the more obvious it becomes that you are anything but.

And even now, as you question my use of the word "tolerance" (as I highlighted above), it is the left that is seeking to ban certain speech and topics from the public square through political correctness and force.

Even more telling is your inability to see the intolerance of your own speech.

That you would take my pointing out this intolerance and turn it back on me is deliciously obtuse of you, while being a transparently obvious attempt to yet again dodge my larger point - the intolerance of the left.

Like I said, you are quite the piece of work there sport!

Mm.

You dislike me, perhaps.

But what intolerance, specifically? Are you making a value judgement of such intolerance?



Would that which I am supposed to be dodging have hit me?



Specifically meaning?



And?



More than anything else here, I'm interested in knowing what specifically you mean and refer to.

Perhaps your conception of an "intellectual" would dicatate, if nothing else, that such a person would not make false statements?



Again, is the statement false?

@ lu61f3r


)

I think your doing pretty
good myself.

Just thought I would toss this in. From Dr. Morris Massey University of Colorado

Morris Massey has described three major periods during which values are developed.

1. The Imprint Period. Up to the age of seven, we are like sponges, absorbing everything around us and accepting much of it as true, especially when it comes from our parents. The confusion and blind belief of this period can also lead to the early formation of trauma and other deep problems. The critical thing here is to learn a sense of right and wrong, good and bad. This is a human construction which we nevertheless often assume would exist even if we were not here (which is an indication of how deeply imprinted it has become).

2. The Modeling Period. Between the ages of eight and thirteen, we copy people, often our parents, but also other people. Rather than blind acceptance, we are trying on things like suit of clothes, to see how they feel. We may be much impressed with religion or our teachers. You may remember being particularly influenced by junior school teachers who seemed so knowledgeable—maybe even more so than your parents.

3. The Socialization Period. Between 13 and 21, we are very largely influenced by our peers. As we develop as individuals and look for ways to get away from the earlier programming, we naturally turn to people who seem more like us. Other influences at these ages include the media, especially those parts which seem to resonate with our the values of our peer groups.

Not necessarily crazy.

And what exactly is it you find wrong with what I said?

You apparently made an impression on boggie. He has you figured to be someone he can get a quality argument of. Otherwise I think he would just ignore ya.