>>7762706

>>7762713

Satan "works for God" in the same way Man "works for God". That is to say, they have free will.

The problem is it's like trying to play Chess against God, but God knows everything. So you can, in your hubris, think you're outwitting God, but that's just folly.

So, not sure what the points are here. All you need to know is:

>"And they built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin,"

-Jerimiah 32:35

>>7762792

First, Job is a narrative used to teach people about the nature of reality. There is no such thing as a "literal" meaning.

Second, all of creation comes from God, so because God gave creatures free will, they obviously have his "permission" in some sense to do as they want.

Your eschatology is your own. But you're going to have to justify it.

Trump Says He "Doubts" Iran Plane Crash Was An Accident

Update: During what appears to be an informal press gaggle at the White House late Thursday morning, President Trump went off on the Iranians, claiming that the US attacked Suleimani to stop him from bombing an embassy, before adding that he has "doubts" that the Ukrainian jet crash was caused by mechanical error.

He also reportedly said that new sanctions on Iran had already been approved.

TRUMP SAYS IRANIANS SOUGHT TO 'BLOW UP' U.S. EMBASSY

NEW SANCTIONS ON IRAN ALREADY APPROVED BY TREASURY, TRUMP SAYS

TRUMP SAYS HAS DOUBTS UKRANIAN JET CRASH CAUSE WAS MECHANICAL

U.S. OFFICIALS ARE NOW CONFIDENT UKRAINE AIRLINER WAS SHOT DOWN BY IRANIAN MISSILE, CITING SATELLITE DATA -GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

TRUMP: MAY WAIT FOR PHASE TWO CHINA DEAL UNTIL AFTER ELECTION

Other reports citing anonymous US officials are also claiming that US intelligence knowns precise details of the attack, including the fact that Iran brought the plane down with two missiles.

• • *

Things just got even more complicated for Tehran as the deadly crash of UIA Flight 752 looks set to become the center of a new international diplomatic crisis.

That's because, just as we suspected, the deadly crash of UIA Flight 752 over Tehran Tuesday night, which occurred just hours after the regime launched a barrage of missiles at American installations in Iraq, was apparently the result of a misfiring of Iran's missile defense system.

Or at least that's what Newsweek is reporting, citing senior US intelligence officials.

The Ukrainian flight that crashed just outside the Iranian capital of Tehran was struck by an anti-aircraft missile system, a Pentagon official, a senior U.S. intelligence official and an Iraqi intelligence official told Newsweek.

Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, a Boeing 737–800 en route from Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airpot to Kyiv's Boryspil International Airport, stopped transmitting data Tuesday just minutes after takeoff and not long after Iran launched missiles at military bases housing U.S. and allied forces in neighboring Iraq. The aircraft is believed to have been struck by a Russia-built Tor M-1 surface-to-air missile system, known to NATO as Gauntlet, the three officials told Newsweek.

As of now, the base assumption is that the shooting was accidental…

Two Pentagon officials assess that the incident was accidental. Iran's anti-aircraft were likely active following the country's missile attack, which came in response to the U.S. killing last week of Revolutionary Guard Quds Force commander Major General Qassem Soleimani, sources said.

Earlier today, Tehran vehemently denied the "rumors" that the plane was shot down, claiming that the plane took a suspicious turn shortly after takeoff that Iranian officials seemed to suggest indicated some kind of mechanical error. Outcry over the attack has been muted, probably because, as we've pointed out before, Iran's commercial airline industry has had several high-profile safety slip-ups over the years, as its aging planes sometimes struggle to stay airborne.

But the attack on Tuesday was different. The plane seemed to plunge from the sky just 2 minutes after taking off from the international airport in Tehran. Video of the accident released late Thursday appears to show it being struck by a projectile of some kind.

Iran's behavior in the wake of the crash has been suspicious. It is reportedly planning to keep some of the data from the plane's 'black box' from officials at the Ukrainian airline that was operating the plane when it crashed.

Just as we anticipated, the markets are treating this news as vindication for Boeing, which sunk in the aftermath of reports that another Boeing 737 had crashed.

The question now is how does the world handle this information. Though the shooting was probably a mistake, 176 people, mostly non-Iranians, are dead. Canada and the US are already demanding more transparency from Tehran. Where do we go from here?

>>7762816

SAUCE:

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/boeing-shares-climb-reports-iranian-missile-system-shot-down-ukraine-jet

http://archive.is/9Ib40

>>7762825

>Prove to me that all of Creation, whatever that means, comes from God.

That's easy. The Kalam cosmological argument gives the answer.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;

2. The universe began to exist;

Therefore:

1. The universe has a cause.

Given the conclusion, we can state:

1. The universe has a cause;

2. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;

Therefore,

1. An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and infinitely powerful.

Picked a random William Lane Craig video to get you started.

>>7762834

That's why I put "permission" in quotes, because while God does not like our sins, in fact they don't even enter His mind, he still "allows" us to do them in the sense he has given us free will and does not smite us/constrain us from not doing it.

He is in no way complicit in your sins anymore than a police officer is complicit in your sins.

I think we agree, brother.

>>7762893

>I reject that assertion.

You're going to have to give me a reason you reject the assertion.

>Prove it.

Can you jump out of a hole that has no bottom? There are too many logical contradictions in assuming things that don't begin to exist have a cause.

>Nope. Your premises are false

Saying "Nope" isn't an argument. It's childish. I'm here to talk, but you're going to have to try.

>Also it only explains causality not God.

You skipped the second part, which explains how God fits in.

>>7762902

<Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Romans 1:22

>>7762950

>>7762956

The brainwashing is very bad. Spread the word, brothers.

>>7763001

>You can't possibly assert that all things has a cause. Have you teste everything? What constitutes a cause?

If you don't assume that all things have a cause, then you're assuming that something can come from nothing. If you assert that, then you have destroyed the concept of logic altogether, because you reject the concept of logic itself. If something can come from nothing, you live in a very strange world indeed.

>W00t? That doesn't even make sense, much less in the given context…

The point is that you cannot jump out of the bottom of a hole, just like you cannot have events that are past infinite. Since you cannot have that, the universe began to exist.

>I know that is why i gave argumentation after i said "Nope"…

Didn't seem like one.

>It doesn't matter If you can't even get the first part right.

Agree, with the statement, disagree with the sentiment.

I beg you to watch this debate with an open mind, and come back with your questions.

>>7763039

Same same.

>>7763017

>>7763037, >>7763052

>Job was literally a person.

In the meaning of "literal" you're using (which I reject), irrelevant.

>God is literally God.

God is outside our knowledge or understanding, so I don't even know what you mean by "literally" here.

>The devil is literally the devil.

Same as Job.

>The actions taken by Job, God, and the devil were all literal actions.

Even if what you're saying is true, does it matter? Why is this important?

>Job's children literally died.

Why is this relevant?

>It all literally happened.

Why is this important? Do you mean scientific literally? Which didn't exist until the 1500s as a result of Christianity? You have such a materialist worldview I'm not sure you understand all the suppositions you're making here.

>Odd who would argue it did not.

I'm arguing something orthogonal to what you're arguing, because we don't share world views. I am not a materialist.

>Agency is not "permission", it's agency.

You were given agency, and "permission" to use it by God, who gave it to you as a gift. So this statement is meaningless.

>Agency can only be expressed by God retreating into his own sovereignty, and granting us our own sovereignty. Which he has done, for the most part.

Yes. That's my point.

>Evil permeates the creation due to the consequences of mankind's act of rebellion, of agency, in the Garden of Eden.

I agree symbolically, which has nothing to do with the fact that an apple was eaten by Eve, and then Adam.

>And that occurred in God's permissive will, not with God's "permission".

You're a Calvanist?

>God did not grant us agency only to render it useless, and God will not be mocked by man expressing his "agency" through rebellion and sin.

You can't have true love without free will. So clearly. Not sure what the disagreement is.

>Sin has consequences, even to the believers.

Best to remember that always, brother.

>>7763148

No, because I don't know what your point is.

>>7763157

Sauce?

>>7763174

kek. Stop taking yourself so seriously.

>>7762816, >>7762837 Trump Says He "Doubts" Iran Plane Crash Was An Accident

Self noming baker

>>7763168

>>7763202

I will pray for your soul in the meantime. Good luck on your journey, brother.

>>7763214

>you don't understand what a play is?

Clearly I know what I a play is. I don't know why you'd be confused about that, considering I didn't ask you what a play was, I asked you what your point was.

>you don't know what the Bible is?

What is your question?

>you'd need someone skilled in seeing it as a script, and putting the parts to various actors, and they might have just read it out loud, but many will say, in commentaries about this, that the Book of Job was a play.

What is your point.

I still have no idea what your point is.

>>7763232

I pray you are able to open your eyes, and stop being so arrogant and hateful.

One may fool oneself. One will never fool God.