What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[Brian37]

God was complete dick in the book of job.

Job. Other than a shit-ton of babies, no one had it worse in the Bible than Job, who was a righteous, good-hearted man who believed in God with every fiber in his being — which is when God decides to see how miserable he can make this dude before he gets upset. Note: This is a result of a bet between God and Satan. Also note: The bet is God's idea. He's literally just hanging out with Satan — which is kinda weird when you think about it — when he starting bragging about how awesome Job is. Satan points out that Job's pretty blessed — he's rich, he's got a lot of kids, etc., and he probably wouldn't be quite so thrilled with God if he didn't have that stuff. God downs his bourbon, presumably, and tells Satan he can fuck with Job all he wants. Satan does. He kills all of Job's children and animals, burns down his house, destroys his wealth, and then covers him in boils. Job doesn't not curse God, but he does wish he'd never been born (literally) and begs God to kill him, but no dice. This lasts a long time until finally Job wonders why a just God would be so shitty. This is when God pops up and basically tells him."Shut up, I don't have to explain anything to you." Job, having finally done something wrong, pleads for mercy, and God eventually gives him back animals and children — new ones, because the old ones are still dead. Because of a bet. That God made with Satan. For kicks. (Job 1)

http://io9.gizmodo.com/gods-12-biggest-d...1522970429

This and the garden story too. God sets up a rigged system, and places a bet he knows he will win and the innocent people in these stories are simply mere poker chips to make him look good. Not moral one bit. Neither of the stories happened in reality, but as a story line it is sick. 

How many people would come out of a Superman movie liking it if Superman said, "Hey Lex Luther, I'll let you fuck up society for a while and I bet that they will still love me and not you".  Nobody sane would value a plot like that.

[Minimalist]

God was complete dick in the book of job.

More shit borrowed from the Babylonians by way of Sumeria.

http://www.ancient.eu/article/226/

The Ludlul-Bel-Nimeqi - Not Merely a Babylonian Job

There is no question that a number of biblical narratives of the Old Testament have their origins in Sumerian works. The Fall of Man and Noah's Flood in Genesis, for example, can be traced back to the Sumerian works Adapa and Atrahasis. Because of the similarity of the themes addressed in Ludlul-Bel-Nimeqi and Job, so many have compared the two works that there exists today the claim that The Book of Job was derived from the earlier work in the same way as the Flood story.

Nothing original in that OT pile of shit.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Neo

Standard soul making theodicy.  Credulity and moral assessment are -the- way a person assesses that...either pro or con..so I see no reason (but maybe you have a hidden good one™ )for you to levy that as a criticism...of criticism.

[Harry Nevis]

Again, Professor Plumb, you are not making a logical argument; but rather, appealing to emotions of incredulity and moral outrage. You give no consideration to the idea that God may have had perfectly good reasons, however inexplicable to us, for what Job experienced.

Of course we don't.  Because it's just a story.

[Mister Agenda]

So the leg you cut short on the three-legged stool of theodicy is God's supposed omnipotence. I commend you, the folks who go after God's supposed omnibenevolence worry me.

Not at all. Because it's an argument from ignorance, it does not work as a defeater. God is omnipotent in the sense that He is able to do anything that it possible to do. In order the problem of evil to work as a defeater, it must also show that a better world is possible. Since it does not, the force of the argument is not logical; but rather, emotional.

Fixed that for you...

Ah, so you are sawing off omnibenevolence after all, since an omnibenevolent God would not make any world at all if it couldn't make a world without evil.

I presume you don't believe in Satan and demons that tempt humans...I doubt you would claim it's not logically possible for God to make a world where they're not represented.

[SteveII]

Not at all. Because it's an argument from ignorance, it does not work as a defeater. God is omnipotent in the sense that He is able to do anything that it possible to do. In order the problem of evil to work as a defeater, it must also show that a better world is possible. Since it does not, the force of the argument is not logical; but rather, emotional.

Fixed that for you...

Ah, so you are sawing off omnibenevolence after all, since an omnibenevolent God would not make any world at all if it couldn't make a world without evil.

I presume you don't believe in Satan and demons that tempt humans...I doubt you would claim it's not logically possible for God to make a world where they're not represented.

He would if free will had sufficient value as to allow the possibility of evil (which it seems it does). 

Satan and demons don't make us sin so are not part of any argument.

[Brian37]

Ah, so you are sawing off omnibenevolence after all, since an omnibenevolent God would not make any world at all if it couldn't make a world without evil.

I presume you don't believe in Satan and demons that tempt humans...I doubt you would claim it's not logically possible for God to make a world where they're not represented.

He would if free will had sufficient value as to allow the possibility of evil (which it seems it does). 

Satan and demons don't make us sin so are not part of any argument.

That is utter nonsense, and if you think it is ok to treat humans like poker chips, dont ever expect me to let you baby sit my kid if I had one.

There is only choice if you know what is going on and are in on setting it up. If you don't know what is going on like Adam and Eve or Job, then you are being taken advantage of. If you think that is a choice, or moral then you are allowing yourself to be someone's doormat.

Nobody would play a rigged game by choice if they knew they didn't have a shot at winning. You are literally justifying abuse. But all good cons look lagit and the person whom falls for it isn't the one in on it.

God, "I win no matter what" is not an explanation it is justifying anything but one's own ego and narcissism.

[Mister Agenda]

Ah, so you are sawing off omnibenevolence after all, since an omnibenevolent God would not make any world at all if it couldn't make a world without evil.

I presume you don't believe in Satan and demons that tempt humans...I doubt you would claim it's not logically possible for God to make a world where they're not represented.

He would if free will had sufficient value as to allow the possibility of evil (which it seems it does). 

Satan and demons don't make us sin so are not part of any argument.

What does God lack that his need for people with free will overrides any harm that may result? God can't foresee which people will choose to be evil and refrain from making them, thereby not violating the free will of any people he does allow to exist? It isn't logically impossible for people to only freely choose good...so an omnipotent God should be able to manage to come up with a world where that's the case, and an omnibenevolent God would want to.

What about natural evil? God can't make planets that don't have earthquakes and tsunamis?

So that wasn't the devil in the Garden, just your run-of-the-mill talking snake? They don't have to make us sin, if we're worse off because of them and God is able to destroy them or confine them away from us, God is morally obliged to do so. We're innocent of their creation, that's on God. Of course if God isn't actually all that benevolent, that's not a consideration.

Believing in demons and the devil having any power at all in our world is inconsistent with believing in the God of theodicy. Just because you believe in God doesn't mean you have to believe in devils and demons. Do you think the free will of evil spirits is an important consideration for God?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Mister Agenda, as far as I'm concerned a being that is powerful enough to do anything that it is possible to do satisfies most people's definition of omnipotence.

As to your idea that a good God would not create anything if it included evil,...well, then there would be no love. Personally, I think a world that has love in it, even if that entails some evil, is better than no world at all. YMMV

[Brian37]

Mister Agenda, as far as I'm concerned a being that is powerful enough to do anything that it is possible to do satisfies most people's definition of omnipotence.

As to your idea that a good God would not create anything if it included evil,...well, then there would be no love. Personally, I think a world that has love in it, even if that entails some evil, is better than no world at all. YMMV

Not us, otherwise you wouldn't be here trying to peddle such a broken concept. 

We are not responding to a real thing. We are saying your claimed parameters when you attach "all powerful" to the claim it makes no sense, ether logically or morally.

That is a sick notion, so without evil there would be no love? While my mom had her flaws, she was never evil and always loved me. There most certainly can be love without evil. Healthy relationships are not about a sky hero vs a ground troll. Healthy relationships are about consent, cooperation, problem solving, and good communication skills.

"Evil" is when one  dominates without consent and behaves like you should merely obey. Like an abusive spouse, a dictator, you know, someone you cant remove from their position, like  "all powerful God".

The good thing is that no such moster exists, the bad thing for you is that you have yet to realize it.