What good does religion offer the world today?

. . . what is the punishment for the god's negligence in this case?

Glennn wrote:

. . . what is the punishment for the god's negligence in this case?

Could it be having to endure this conversation?

You have absolutely no understanding of free will.
It is incompatible with the complete omniscience you assume
And it is no guarantee of license.

You might make a good defense attorney, though. You seem capable of assigning blame to any but the guilty.

I am merely asking if you believe God had other options more acceptable to you, particularly the option of destroying Satan for his rebellion.

What is acceptable to me is irrelevant to the text at hand.

. . . God gave Satan carte blanche to do to Job/humankind what Satan wills, except for murder.

Could it be having to endure this conversation?

The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, he is in your hands; but you must spare his life."

I don't see how God isn't complicit, seeing as how he put Job--and by your interpretation, humankind--in Satan's hands.

Could it be having to endure this conversation?

Is that your way of getting out of having to answer the questions put to you?

I'll try to get you back on track. What is the penalty for using free will in a way that is not in accordance with the will of the god? You seem to be doing your best to avoid responding to this question. You have, however, had a reaction to it.

How is the god not responsible for the serpent in the garden where his children live? Further, how is the god not responsible for doing something about it once the discovery was made?

And what is the punishment for the god's negligence in this case? Or has it absolved itself of all responsibility for what followed its actions--or in this case, its inaction?

Once again, you confuse free will with license. Perfect humans with perfect consciences could not sin because God's standards had been created in their figurative hearts (think superegos). You should team with Frank here, as he doesn't understand it, either. The choice offered to them by Satan, and about which they had been warned, was to make moral decisions on their own, independent of God's sovereignty.

I don't see how God isn't complicit, seeing as how he put Job--and by your interpretation, humankind--in Satan's hands.

Actually, it was to avoid accusing you of sophistry

Since free will cannot exist with foreknowledge, God would not have known of the rebellion until it took place.

You have failed to prosecute your case to establish negligence.

It is sad to see someone as fearful of his god as you are, Neo.

It is sad to see someone as fearful of his god as you are, Neo.

It must be terrifying for you. . .

Manslaughter conviction of faith-healing Oregon couple who didn't take dying premature newborn to hospital is upheld

The manslaughter conviction of a faith-healing Oregon couple who did nothing as their son died nine hours after he was born was upheld last week by the state's Supreme Court.

Dale and Shannon Hickman, who are members of the Followers of Christ church, refused to take little David to the hospital in 2009 even though he was born two months premature and weighed under four pounds.

The couple was convicted of second-degree manslaughter two years later, and was sentenced to six years in prison.

In their failed plea to the Oregon Supreme Court, the Hickmans claimed that the state had the burden to prove the couple knew their religious beliefs would cause the death of their child.

The state Supreme Court's decision recounted the minimal steps the Hickmans took to try to save the baby. If they had taken David to a hospital, there is a 99 percent chance he would have survived, a doctor testified at the trial.

"Dale ran into the room where one of his aunts was holding David and anointed David’s head with olive oil and began to pray," the Oct. 8 state Supreme Court decision read. "He noticed that David was taking short breaths, was minimally responsive, and was lighter in color, so he took David into the bedroom where Shannon still lay. At that point, it was 'in the back of [DALE'S] mind' that David would not survive. He sat in a chair by the bed, held David in his arms, and prayed."

The main cause of David's death was staphylococcus pneumonia, the coroner said.

During the trial, both parents testified that "they would not have done anything differently."

"They maintained that they did not believe that anything was medically wrong with David after he was born, despite his prematurity," the state Supreme Court's decision read. "And by the time they realized that David was having medical complications, they believed that it was too late — that he would have died before an ambulance could have responded."

@InfraBlue,
And yet you seem unable to articulate how God could or should have acted differently

. . . Neo, I'm inclined to agree with you that God had no choice but to act as he did in Job's story. But the whole argument hinges on why this was so. What justified God's complicity in the undeserved torture of Job? Without this justification, God is a cruel, irrational and capricious being.

My apologies if you already answered this point but I missed it if you did.

Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. (Luke 22:31)

4 “Skin for skin!” Satan replied. “A man will give all he has for his own life.(Job 2:4)

Frank Apisa wrote:

It is sad to see someone as fearful of his god as you are, Neo.

It must be terrifying for you. . .

If both of us are wrong, Frank, we will live a few more years (a lot, I hope) then croak. I can't imagine either of us looking forward to that day. But we can neither predict nor change, eh? In the meantime, I have a fine hope, I can drink beer. I can travel, play pinochle, and love my wife.

Terrifying? No more than you, Frank. Likely less.

Of course, God knew that free will could lead to rebellion.
The alternative would be to create robots.

He would not have been willing to risk giving us free will if he lacked the power to complete his purpose.

And we would not be here.