[QUOTE="Ezgam3r"]

God only caused the first test onto Job (destroying his crops, killing his kids, etc. that he gets back in the end) in Job 1. As said in Job 2:4-7, Satan did the rest of the stuff to Job throughout the book.-Sun_Tzu-

But Satan only does what he does because God allows him to do it. It is God who says"Behold, he is in your power, only spare his life." (Job 2:11) and in Job 42:11, all the resonsibility is placed on God's shoulders, where it reads "...all the trouble the LORD had brought upon him..."

God's "rude boasting" from Job 38-41 was more of a response to Elihu's own angry boasting from Job 32-37 which is basically him saying "I'm all that and a bag of chips!" in response to Job's questioning from Job 29-31 and then God is all "Ah hellz na! He didn't just say that, did he!?" and gave a response which IMO is less boasting then the equivalent a parent telling their adolescent teen who thinks they know it all that they don't know ****.

Ezgam3r

I don't think God was resonding to Elihu. One reason for this is because Elihu is not rebuked in chapter 42 with Job's other friends. In fact, Elihu is not mentioned at all, before or after his speech, possibly hinting towards the idea Elihu's speech being added to the story after the rest of the story was written. Another reason why I don't think God is talking to Elihu is because Elihu pretty much tells Job the same thing that God says.

God didn't destroy Job? That's not what God says. "And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him,to destroy him without cause." (Job 2:3) It is God who destroys Job. Satan is nothing more than the instrument that God uses to destroy him.-Sun_Tzu-

God only caused the first test onto Job (destroying his crops, killing his kids, etc. that he gets back in the end) in Job 1. As said in Job 2:4-7, Satan did the rest of the stuff to Job throughout the book.

And I don't know how else to describe a sarcastic tirade that goes on for four chapters, and despite Job's reply to God, who is at the time midway through this tirade by saying "I am unworthy-how can I reply to you?I put my hand over my mouth.I spoke once, but I have no answer-twice, but I will say no more." (Job 40:4-5), God persists to go own and boast about his might for another good two chapters.

-Sun_Tzu-

God's "rude boasting" from Job 38-41 was more of a response to Elihu's own angry boasting from Job 32-37 which is basically him saying "I'm all that and a bag of chips!" in response to Job's questioning from Job 29-31 and then God is all "Ah hellz na! He didn't just say that, did he!?" and gave a response which IMO is less boasting then the equivalent a parent telling their adolescent teen who thinks they know it all that they don't know ****.

[QUOTE="Ezgam3r"]DADT is pointless IMO. If they are physically able to go to war and they wish (or in the case of drafts, have) to serve, it doesn't matter what way they swing.majwill24

So u think they should be accepted in that way? Well i think gays should be accepted in that way, here they pretty much are, i live in holland. Discrimination is always a bad thing and come from ignorant people. But acceptence of pedophiles goes too far for my taste. It would have to overcome so many things, and it would be too hard for most people to accept.

What if a pedophile who "came out the closet" tries to get a job at a daycare centre? thats just too weird, and heck even if the world somehow gets that open-minded, and it wudnt be weird. Would u trust a pedophile, who admittedly HAS sexual urges towards little children, to babysit ur kids? Without having to worry, of him maybe "accidently" touching them in inappropriate places or whatever?

I mean comon, i get what ure saying, discrimination, gays, everything, but the issue of pedophiles being accepted. No, as ive said, if they get accepted(for the sake of the "normal" pedophiles) the "sick" pedophiles will have more confidence in acting out on their urges, and in a world where they are accepted, maybe even have a case when they have molested a kid - yes i said molested, because u cant possibly say a child can agree having sex with an older man. Thats why we have laws, of minor age because to a degree they should still be under the protection of parents. Hey i dont care about men having thoughts about little children or lusting after them. I dont care if theyre good persons or not. The whole acceptence thing is personal. And frankly, i dont see it happening

SenorGuapo

It is just as gays in the US are discriminated against. They are too far for peoples tastes over here.

Hells yea I'll worry. Then again if I had kids, I'll still worry about leaving them with a any stranger as most of us would leave them at a daycare or a babysitter without thinking "are they a pedo?" although, chances are, some of them are in fact pedos. But the chances of open pedos realistically getting a job around kids is null as the employer will not want to take the chance in the first place and parents will keep their kids a million miles away from a known pedo, even if they will not do anything to the child as not all pedos wish to or have the audacity to actually rape a child.

The "normal" pedophiles will not have anything to worry about as they aren't molesting children. "Sick" pedophiles will still be child molesters and, unless society really goes over the deep end, will be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They will still be under the protection of the parents as the legal age in most countries are 16 and I doubt they will somehow lower them to 7 or something.

Understandable. You don't need to accept them if you don't want to; many people in the US will never accept gays as they are. I doubt this will change but I just find that they shouldn't be portrayed as the guys on To Catch a Predator (as they are child predators) or the guy in Austria.

Yeah i totally saw what u did there..... That dsnt change the fact that having sex with a child is bad.... And two gay man having sex isnt..... And what u did there, dsnt count for gays. My niece is gay and she knew it before she started wearing pants at the age of 4, when she refused to put on a dress for a wedding. My aunt on the other side never revealled it and even led a so-called normal life. That didnt turn out very well. Being gay is really something that u are born with. BUT, dont get me wrong - Having an attraction for kids is also something u are born with, because aparently i dont have it. But as u said an atraction isnt always acted upon, but in this case when it is. Its illegal.Now the question is, shud we accept "pedophilia"? Well, would you? Let them have a support group? Their own section in the library of books describing sex with children? or how to manuals? Let them have public rallies on tv fighting for pedophiles rights? With slogans as, being pedo is OK? Pls define acceptence towards "pedophilia" for me...... cuz i dont get itSenorGuapo

I never said it was and it wasn't respectively.

I know, I believe so too. It's the same with pedo's besides the fact that unlike your niece at 4, they may find out when they're 13 or a little later when they find themselves attracted to students grades under them.

Exactly.

Support group? Sure. Describing sex with children and howto manuals? Not a chance. They can have rallies promoting pedophile awareness (as in that their are non-child-raping pedos and not all pedos are like the ones you see on TV; some could actually control themselves).

Acceptance is people not discriminating against pedophiles, automatically categorizing them as child predators and rapists and accepting that they are born that way. Just like gays should not be discriminated against, automatically accusing them as the downfall of society and will infect our children with "The Gay".

Both types of discrimination are wrong and shouldn't be tolerated.