Originally Posted by JLarson (Post 3921933)

No, it's not like giving a child candy only to take it away. Me protecting a child so they can get the candy for themselves, and then no longer protecting that child - that's a much closer comparison.

Originally Posted by JARblue (Post 3921938)

You're ignoring key elements in the Job scenario...

So let's compare it to giving a piece of candy to a young kid who is on a playground with a bully who you know is going to take the candy from the kid. But you give the kid the candy anyway and then look away. That's on you, as you are a grown adult who is aware of the situation.

Originally Posted by eastwest2300 (Post 3921876)

11M then 88M

Originally Posted by JLarson (Post 3921942)

I'm not ignoring key elements, but your basic argument is flawed. You're again saying that in this scenario, I'm giving something to someone. I'm not. I'm permitting someone to acquire property, unmolested, and protecting them during those transactions. I don't owe it to them, I don't have to do it, but I'm doing it anyway because I want to. At a certain point, I either no longer want to or have other motivation to not do so.

1) I'm not obligated.
True but has no bearing on the argument at hand
2) We had no agreement that I'd protect you, I just did it.
Fair enough. But if you then boast about what you do provide, that makes you a dìck. This is what God did to Satan
3) I am aware that harm is going to befall you, in the way that harm befalls anyone who is a part of this life. That's a part of life.
That's a cop-out excuse if I've ever heard one. Satan is right there. He's the bully in my argument above - you know he's going to do something right then and there when you remove your protection. If the story didn't involve God and Satan having an argument over Job then I agree with the 'that's part of life' statement.

(btw, I argue the point because I find it interesting to hear other people's perspectives. Job is always a fascinating topic.)

Originally Posted by eastwest2300 (Post 3921876)

11M then 88M

Originally Posted by bunk (Post 3921886)

I was a 16R, 16S, then 81B in the reserves.
We went to the field and the grunts we were supporting were undermanned. I was voluntold to fill in as 11B. Carrying a SAW at night, walking in rain, slushing through deep mud. No thanks! Give me a track any day.

Originally Posted by bunk (Post 3921859)

How severe were her symptoms?

Originally Posted by JARblue (Post 3921951)

Same here :tiphat: :)

Someone who isn't obligated to give, yet does anyway, and then takes away their gift for no reason other than to prove a point to someone else is a dìck. No one yet has convinced me otherwise.

Originally Posted by jchammond (Post 3921820)

Gonna make some breakfast & be rolling by 5 :driving:

Should be in Atlanta area by 9 easily :ugh2:

Bone-Daddy, may want to leave package outside house...as if things go well I’ll be by your place before lunchtime :tup:

Originally Posted by JARblue (Post 3921919)

I will never even pretend to have the patience of Job. That story is one of the reasons I will never understand religion :icon14:

Why the hell would God put a righteous man through all that bs just to prove a point to the Devil? What a dìck!! :icon17:

Originally Posted by Spoiler (Post 3921966)

Well seeing how this off topic thread headed over into religion already, we may as well just go into my views on politics today...

:rofl2:

Originally Posted by JLarson (Post 3921962)

I get your perspective. I don't personally agree with it and in fact, if the story is to be taken literally, I think it might be worth any loss to actually get a chance to question God; but I see your argument and think you raise a good point.

That's where arguing morality with a deity gets tricky though, right? A proponent of the way Job plays out could state "well God knew what was going to happen, and good came from out. Therefore, we argue from our limited perspectives, bound by time. In the context of the infinite, this was worthwhile."

An opponent could argue this is just splitting hairs, and something which causes any harm can never be justified.

Thanks for the discussion - time for me to get a coffee. :tiphat: