Evidence for God from Science

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:If Job was not a real person, then Eze 14:14, 20. must be fake because God claims to be the speaker. If that part of Ezekiel is fake, the rest of it is in question. Ditto for the Book of James. If Ezekiel & James are questionable, what of the rest of the Bible?

Questionable?

I enjoyed Jung's book on Job, he makes the case that God had to come in human form and die on the cross to regain the moral high ground on humanity after the Job incident. Kinda reduces the NT to a marketing campaign but it's an interesting psychoanalytical venture into the mind of the God.

Clearly the Book of James considers Job to be a real person. Note, immediately before referring to Job, the prophets are mentioned as examples of suffering and patience, immediately followed by the reference to Job. He's linking the past suffering (for the Lord's sake) of REAL people, and holding them up as examples for his 1st century audience as well as for us today. Why would James use a group of real people ("the prophets") as an example and then link their experiences to those of a fictitous person? It's not like there were not many other examples (people) from Scripture he could have used.

James 5:10=11: "As an example of suffering and patience, brothers, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. Behold, we consider those blessed who remained steadfast. You have heard of the steadfastness of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful."

And why would God waste His time in trying to attempt to prove to SATAN anything? God already knows no truth will be accepted by Satan, no matter its proof. And Satan already well knew of God's power and ability to know all things. He knows that if the Lord says something, that it's 100% true - or will be. Satan also knows of his own fate/doom. So why would God want to prove anything to a subordinate, evil being that refuses to obey or to submit to Him, except when forced to? What would be the point? Satan doesn't need anything God has said to him PROVEN. He lived in heaven with God before mankind was created and his fall to earth. He knows all about God's limitless capabilities and all-knowingness. However, if God has put the Book of Job in His word to mankind, and thus preserved it for those in the past and for us today, it would make sense that the lessons of Job are lessons FOR US - certainly not for Satan.

Byblos wrote:

MAGSolo wrote:

Byblos wrote:Mag, just so we're all on the same page, could you please define evil?

morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked

Ah so now we're getting somewhere. Please define what morality is (again so we can discuss the subject knowing we are both understanding the terms similarly).

a set of principles concerning right and wrong.

cheezerrox wrote:

MAGSolo wrote:And what do you base that opinion on? Lets look at the text:

Let's look at the text indeed. Note G-d's direct introduction into the story and answer to everything that's been said starting in chapter 38 on to the end in chapter 42. Why does He address Job only? If this was all for the sake of proving something to Satan, why isn't he mentioned again or addressed? Certainly if G-d is the childish, capricious Person you seem to want to make Him out to be, why wouldn't He take the oppurtunity to gloat to Satan or at least acknowledge their bet.
Well this is all presupposing the biblical God exists in the first place.

So it seems that God told Satan to look at his servent Job, how he is blameless and upright, fears God and shuns evil. Satan says he is only that way because God has blessed him but were misfortune to befall him, he would curse the Lord. God says well go ahead, do what you please to him but dont harm him personally. Now where do you get the notion that this was not done to prove a point to Satan? Where in the bible is this indicated at all or is this merely your opinion?

I think if nothing else this settles the question of whether or not God allows suffering and evil . Not only does he allow it, but it seems he does so for very trivial reasons.

Look at Job 21:22.
"Can anyone teach G-d knowledge,
In that He judges those on high?"

The G-d of the Bible, the G-d of the book of Job, is all-knowing. Why would He need to prove a point to Satan when He already knows what will happen?

Job 40:2
"Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty?
Let him who reproves G-d answer it."

I think its likely that the story was written to be a parable on long-suffering, faith, perseverance and so forth, but as an actual literal story it doesnt make a lot of sense. Satan is basically minding his business, God asks him where he is coming from, Satan says from here and there, then God just randomly brings up Job and starts talking about how awesome he is when Satan had not asked him the first thing about Job and nothing indicates he was thinking about Job at all. It doesnt make a lot of sense as a factual occurrence but it makes sense as the set-up for a parable. What possible reason would God have to just randomly start talking about how awesome Job is to Satan?

Proinsias wrote:he makes the case that God had to come in human form and die on the cross to regain the moral high ground on humanity after the Job incident.

I believe Jung was basing that assertion on a statement the writer of the book of Hebrews made. Generally when Christians are asked why did Jesus come to this earth to die on a cross they will almost exclusively quote John 3:16. However, the writer of Hebrews claimed this:

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

The Satan issue wasn't dealt with during the time of Job because that would be dealt with by Christ through His death and resurrection years later.

Rich, in his article on the main site on gap creationism makes this statement:

"Theologically, I find it difficult to support the concept that Satan has the power to destroy and corrupt all of God’s creation. I’m sure that if he really had that kind of power, he would have used it again to destroy the world or at least prevent the Messiah from living. Nowhere in the Bible is that kind of power attributed to Satan..."

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/gap.html

Well, I disagree with Rich's statement. If Satan didn't have such immense power, then the writer of Hebrews was misled by claiming that Christ was purposely manifested in the flesh to destroy Satan's power because evidently Satan had great power. Even in the Old Testament Isaiah claims:

Isa 14:24 The Lord of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:

Isa 14:25 That I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot: then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulders.

Isa 14:26 This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth: and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations.

I believe Satan is allegorically named the Assyrian in verse 25 symbolically representing the cruelest of the ancient kingdoms, and in verse 26 the whole purpose in summary shows Satan had immense power.

Even Satan himself claims again in Isaiah:

Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

In order to exalt a throne above the stars of God, you must have a throne, hence a kingdom to exalt over them in the first place. A throne is a seat of power.

When Jesus was tempted by Satan, Satan claims this:

Luke 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

Luke 4:6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

Jesus did not dispute with Satan over that statement. In fact Jesus says Satan is the 'prince of this world', John 12:31 and Paul claims he is the 'god of this world', 2Cor 4:4.

Even when Rich claims, "I’m sure that if he really had that kind of power,...at least prevent the Messiah from living." Satan made numerous attempts at destroying the bloodline of Christ from Noah's flood, to the corruption of the kingdom of Israel, through to the slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem. Destroy the bloodline of Adam and you destroy any chance for the messiah being born.

Therefore, with so much power the purpose of Christ being manifested in the flesh to destroy such power was righteous and is evident as Jung claimed.

Proinsias wrote:Kinda reduces the NT to a marketing campaign but it's an interesting psychoanalytical venture into the mind of the God.

Yes, I believe it clearly shows that God is a God of judgment not just a God of love and will bring about righteousness on His own schedule.

MAGSolo wrote:I think its likely that the story was written to be a parable on long-suffering, faith, perseverance and so forth, but as an actual literal story it doesnt make a lot of sense. Satan is basically minding his business, God asks him where he is coming from, Satan says from here and there, then God just randomly brings up Job and starts talking about how awesome he is when Satan had not asked him the first thing about Job and nothing indicates he was thinking about Job at all. It doesnt make a lot of sense as a factual occurrence but it makes sense as the set-up for a parable. What possible reason would God have to just randomly start talking about how awesome Job is to Satan?

The story certainly COULD have just been a parable, but the other Scriptures say otherwise, as FL has pointed out. If we were going on the book by itself, then it could be debated, but the books of Ezekiel and James certainly take it as literal.
And where in the text does it say that Satan was minding his own business? G-d didn't come to him; he came to G-d. In Job 1:6 it says,
"Now there was a day when the sons of G-d came to present themselves before Hashem, and the Adversary (Hebrew: Satan) also came among them."
As far as G-d's reason to bring up Job, there isn't a definite answer. But, I do believe there is a likely one. G-d has a way of speaking to people where He goes straight to what they're thinking, and not exactly what they're saying.
Note Exodus 3:11-12, where the Lord appears to Moses through the burning bush and says that Moses will be the one to deliver the Isra'elites from slavery in Egypt. Moses says in verse 11, "Who am I, that I should go to Pharaoh, and that I should bring the sons of Isra'el out of Egypt?" Pay attention to G-d's answer in verse 12, where He states, "Certainly I will be with you." Now, G-d didn't answer His question, did He? No, He answered Moses' heart. Moses was obviously terrified and bewildered by the idea of him, a nobody, being the deliverer of an entire nation, and to suddenly be told this by the Creator of the universe was confusing. G-d answered Moses' question by saying that He would be with him, to answer his fear, confusion, and uncertainty, and to show that it wouldn't be impossible or unsuccessful.
Note also Jesus' exchange with the prideful ruler in Mark 10:17-22. The man comes up showing much respect to Jesus and addresses Him as Good Teacher. Jesus doesn't answer His question about receiving everlasting life immediately, but first addresses the man's heart by saying in verse 18, "Why do you call Me good?" The man wasn't seeking Jesus or His counsel because He truly revered and accepted Him as the Mashiach and G-d, but because he considered himself so righteous and religious so as to earn his way into heaven. Jesus addresses his motives and whether he truly knew and believed what he was saying. The man's pride is evident in verses 20 and 22 (seriously, never lied or not honored your parents?). If He truly revered Jesus as the Good Teacher that He was, He wouldn't have neglected to follow Jesus' command in verse 21 to sell his property. When the Man whose words you claim to believe are from G-d, tells you to do something, you don't just kinda get sad and walk off like, "Oh well."
I believe it's the same case in Job. Satan comes before G-d and all the heavenly host, obviously for a reason. G-d decides to cut past the small talk and go straight to the issue. I believe Satan had Job in mind and G-d brought it up first. Now, this doesn't have any Scripture to specifically back it up, so I wouldn't preach it as Gospel, but that's certainly a feasible answer. It's not like G-d was on the edge of His seat to see what Satan was there for; an Omniscient Being would certainly already know, wouldn't He?

Please note how militant agnostic and atheists insert their personal presuppositions into bible text about Job in an attempt to prove God a moral evil monster for allowing killing of Job’s adult children by the Adversary.

Bible does not mention their eternal state but since Job made an offering continually for his children Job 1:5 one can assume they made it to Paradise under the Old Testament covenant ways of atonement. So, mortal life cut short, but eternal life in paradise forever –hmmm who was really unjust? Not God, nor Job, but the Adversary proven unjust – he was uncovered.

God was exposing the Adversary and all the sons of pride in this book, as he does so even today as evidenced by the militant agnostic and atheists attempts to indict God as a moral monster, so that he doesn’t exist, or have others follow their lead to curse God.

Job paid the atonement price for his children but we today have Christ blood provide atonement for us who believe in Him…

Think about it…
-
-
-

MAGSolo wrote:

Byblos wrote:

MAGSolo wrote:

Byblos wrote:Mag, just so we're all on the same page, could you please define evil?

morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked

Ah so now we're getting somewhere. Please define what morality is (again so we can discuss the subject knowing we are both understanding the terms similarly).

a set of principles concerning right and wrong.

Very well done. Another question if you'll indulge me, how did this set of principles come about?

To some extent, morals are a simple product of humans being a social species. Us being social dictates that we will automatically be "good" to some people and as a social species we are inherently "good" to those closest to us and most like us. To what extent this goodness maintains or drops off as people become less like us varies from person to person. Morals are dictated by our environment, Ill use slavery to show this. If you are born and raised in a society that practices slavery and finds it morally acceptable, you will be very likely to find it morally acceptable and if you are born and raised in a society where it is not practiced and is found to be morally reprehensible then you are likely to find it morally reprehensible. Morals are dictated by time; so in a certain time period slavery might be widely viewed as morally acceptable while at another period in time it might widely be seen as morally unacceptable. Morals are dictated by the country you live in and its practices, so slavery might be seen as morally acceptable in one country and at the same time seen as morally unacceptable in another country and obviously we know that even in the same country, one region may find a thing to be morally right while another region may find it morally wrong. So the principles of right and wrong that we live by are determined by a lot of things. Some of it is the natural product of being social creatures and much of it is determined by the environment we are born and raised in.

MAGSolo wrote:To some extent, morals are a simple product of humans being a social species. Us being social dictates that we will automatically be "good" to some people and as a social species we are inherently "good" to those closest to us and most like us. To what extent this goodness maintains or drops off as people become less like us varies from person to person. Morals are dictated by our environment, Ill use slavery to show this. If you are born and raised in a society that practices slavery and finds it morally acceptable, you will be very likely to find it morally acceptable and if you are born and raised in a society where it is not practiced and is found to be morally reprehensible then you are likely to find it morally reprehensible. Morals are dictated by time; so in a certain time period slavery might be widely viewed as morally acceptable while at another period in time it might widely be seen as morally unacceptable. Morals are dictated by the country you live in and its practices, so slavery might be seen as morally acceptable in one country and at the same time seen as morally unacceptable in another country and obviously we know that even in the same country, one region may find a thing to be morally right while another region may find it morally wrong. So the principles of right and wrong that we live by are determined by a lot of things. Some of it is the natural product of being social creatures and much of it is determined by the environment we are born and raised in.

Thanks for an honest answer.

But then, what's the point of you creating this thread? You seem to be complaining about God being immoral and letting innocent people suffer, yet you claim that morality is relative and dependent on the environment. So what gives you the objectivity necessary to condemn someone or something? You write all the time about justice, fairness, and how the world is full of evil - yet you have no basis to justify it. It's all your personal opinion. Moral relativism is dangerous - if something can be morally right for you and not for me and vice versa, then a murderer or any other criminal could claim that what (s)he did wasn't immoral in his/her opinion. You claim that morality is a product of the environment we're born and raised in, so does it mean that if someone was raised in a family where his father beat his mother, he could start beating his wife and blame his environment? Makes no sense. Plus, if morality is just a behaviour programmed in our genes, then why attach any significance to it? That's a big danger - a loss of values because relativism leads to chaos, and chaos leads to destruction.

And that ^ , Mag, is exactly the point. If society determines what morals are, then morals are no more objective than picking the color of the clothes you're going to wear tomorrow. It's all a matter of preference as there is no standard by which one can judge, no yardstick by which one can measure their degree of morality. There might be small scales of so-called morality within enclosed societies and in specific time periods but once these societies become more and more open as we have today, relative morality becomes absolutely meaningless and the result is utter anarchy. A person who comes from a set of morals that find child rape perfectly acceptable is no more guilty of child rape in his own society than in any other.

The fact is you cry foul when you seem to think that God is not acting according to his own moral rules but on your world view you can't even explain what morality is apart from personal (or even majority) preference and why it is different than choosing chocolate versus vanilla. Even when you judge God by His own standards you completely fail to grasp the meaning of God's actions, let alone knowing what the ultimate purpose is. You read scriptures of killing children then come to the conclusion that God must be a monster for condoning such actions yet you can't even tell us why it would be better for those children to have lived than died. If God exists and he knows the end from the beginning then how exactly do you come to the conclusion that these children would have been better off living? He is omniscient, are you? How exactly do you know that God did not in fact RESCUE these children from a doomed life? Can you tell me how you know that? By what standard are you judging God? Make no mistake about it, atheism is a fundamentalist religion. The only difference is that you fashion a god to worship out of your own subjective minds much the same way you do morality. Enjoy your vanilla, Mag, I prefer chocolate personally.

And, yet, there does appear to be a universal morality that is within most men. Most societies would agree that murder, rape, unprovoked violence and stealing are wrong. A two-year-old will slap his playmate and run and hide (he knows he has done something wrong), and the victim (another two-year-old), will scream and cry in outrage that some injustice has been done to him.

Truly, the universal morality, naturally common to all (but repressed), is typically transgressed by those in power using religion, military or political power to justify and thus enact their own versions of its (universal moral law's) overriding. And so where did this "built-in" universal sense of morality come from ? (Romans 1): That men "by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has SHOWN it to them."

So there is a universal understanding of God's basics of moral law, and yet we see it ignored because man often suppresses and ignores it. And this built-in morality is very different from situational ethics or the shifting winds of culture and society, which all change, over time and from culture to culture.

Thanks for the info on Jung Katabole, just what I was looking for.

Byblos wrote:And that ^ , Mag, is exactly the point. If society determines what morals are, then morals are no more objective than picking the color of the clothes you're going to wear tomorrow. It's all a matter of preference as there is no standard by which one can judge, no yardstick by which one can measure their degree of morality. There might be small scales of so-called morality within enclosed societies and in specific time periods but once these societies become more and more open as we have today, relative morality becomes absolutely meaningless and the result is utter anarchy. A person who comes from a set of morals that find child rape perfectly acceptable is no more guilty of child rape in his own society than in any other.

The fact is you cry foul when you seem to think that God is not acting according to his own moral rules but on your world view you can't even explain what morality is apart from personal (or even majority) preference and why it is different than choosing chocolate versus vanilla. Even when you judge God by His own standards you completely fail to grasp the meaning of God's actions, let alone knowing what the ultimate purpose is. You read scriptures of killing children then come to the conclusion that God must be a monster for condoning such actions yet you can't even tell us why it would be better for those children to have lived than died. If God exists and he knows the end from the beginning then how exactly do you come to the conclusion that these children would have been better off living? He is omniscient, are you? How exactly do you know that God did not in fact RESCUE these children from a doomed life? Can you tell me how you know that? By what standard are you judging God? Make no mistake about it, atheism is a fundamentalist religion. The only difference is that you fashion a god to worship out of your own subjective minds much the same way you do morality. Enjoy your vanilla, Mag, I prefer chocolate personally.

So suppose I am wrong and morality is not merely subjective. Where does universal and objective morality come from? And are you arguing that having children brutally murdered by invading armies is the only way to rescue them from a doomed life? Are you arguing that there was no other more humane way to save them from this doomed life? And finally, by whatever moral standard you subscribe to, is murdering children and infants morally right or wrong, good or bad, or however you want to describe it, or is it situationally (made up that word) right or wrong.?

Philip wrote:And, yet, there does appear to be a universal morality that is within most men. Most societies would agree that murder, rape, unprovoked violence and stealing are wrong. A two-year-old will slap his playmate and run and hide (he knows he has done something wrong), and the victim (another two-year-old), will scream and cry in outrage that some injustice has been done to him.

Truly, the universal morality, naturally common to all (but repressed), is typically transgressed by those in power using religion, military or political power to justify and thus enact their own versions of its (universal moral law's) overriding. And so where did this "built-in" universal sense of morality come from ? (Romans 1): That men "by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has SHOWN it to them."

So there is a universal understanding of God's basics of moral law, and yet we see it ignored because man often suppresses and ignores it. And this built-in morality is very different from situational ethics or the shifting winds of culture and society, which all change, over time and from culture to culture.

So by this universal understanding of Gods basics of moral law, Is it morally right or wrong to murder children and infants?