Why did God do Satan’s bidding?

[John V]

One of the rather simplistic lessons drawn from Job, often, is that we don't have the moral authority to condemn God or his actions. If this is the case, does it not also follow that we lack the moral authority to justify him? If his morals are indeed beyond the pale of our meager sensibilities, the appropriate conclusion would seem to be that we can't know, that we must remain agnostic on the question of whether the God we follow is moral or immoral. That leaves me with some profound difficulties in concluding that God's commandments are in and of themselves moral, if we are indeed ultimately unable to assess his morals.

That's part of why Christianity is admittedly requires faith.

If all of the above follows, why follow God's mandates at all?

First, as noted, one can have faith that God is good as he claims. Second, it's a good position practically.

---

Because I'm not the king/emperor/dictator/legislative body/entire voting bloc of the US? Obvious answer is obvious.

So God, as king of all creation, is the one who has authority to determine who has what rights. Thanks!

Would you like to start a thread about animals rights just to avoid establishing the rights of your god? Go right ahead, I'll be there.

No, I'm having fun right here watching you dance around the cognitive dissonance caused by fact that humans take liberties with lesser species, yet you charge god with evil for doing the same.

Do rights boil down to opinions? In and of themselves, yeah, you could probably stretch and call them that. Not that this makes them less compelling.

So, animal rights activists are just as compelling in their position that people who eat meat, kill pests, etc. are wrong, as you charge God with being wrong.

I suppose god cares about you charge as much as the people in a FIve Guys care about PETA.

And BTW, when you base your argument on consistency, pointing out your hypocrisy is a valid argument, not a fallacy.

LOL...unfortunately it isn't pointing out an appeal to hypocrisy(need a wiki link again?), nor have you shown any hypocrisy in the more common usage of the term, nor would it matter if you had. [/quote]
Yes, it matters. Again, when you make a claim of consistency, pointing out your inconsistency is not fallacious.

The only person appealing to hypocrisy here is you, ffs.

Yes, as your positions are hypocritical and mine aren't, and you made a specific claim of consistency.

For some reason you think that drilling out my moral principles, or a lack of consistency in my application of them will excuse you, or god-from having to establish your position.

No, I think that showing lack of consistency refutes your claim of consistency. As you said:

AI won't get you any farther with me, because I;m consistent in my application of rights, I wouldn't lord over AI any more than I would accept anyone lording over me. Self determination. If I deny another sentient being a right we have determined originates in sentience then who am I to protest when another labors to deny me that right?

Considering the supermarket, we apparently haven't determined that life is a right which originates in sentience. So, who are you to protest if god also denies men that right?

All rights, as I've already explained.

See above. Apparently the rights which originate in sentience are few and trivial, if there are any at all.

Would it be fair, at this point, to conclude that you simply can't explain any of this, and that you felt compelled to make a claim which you were incapable of or unwilling to elaborate upon?

Which claim is that, and how do you know I felt a compulsion to make it?

---

So you think it moral to yake back what you give someone.

Xmas must be some fun at you house friend. Yuk.

Seriously? That's your response? Why even bother?