Random destinies

[Avatar]

Only half-wrong. I'm afraid the regularity is indeed pretty poor...or at least...the speed and reliability thereof.

--A

[rusmeister]

If you don't believe in Swiss watches - if you think they are all, to the very last one, actually made in Thailand (and most are - granted - this is why your experience with Swiss watches has been so dismal) then my pointing to one would be futile, as far as you are concerned.

No, I don't guess I missed your point.

If you can suggest that Loremaster doesn't really believe in Swiss watches, then yes, you missed his point.

I don't believe he was arguing that Swiss watches aren't real, but instead that your analogy wasn't apt because watches are physical artifacts, whereas you're proposing an authentic interpretation of a religious text. While it may become problematic to tell a fake watch from the real one, this can only arise as the fake approaches the real one in quality and appearance. Thus, there is a standard of comparison which is unquestionable. The Swiss watch is a real Swiss watch by definition. There is nothing circular about defining an object as itself. In logic, that's called the law of identity. A = A. "A Swiss watch is a Swiss watch."

However, in claiming that your interpretation or brand of Christianity is the authentic one, you have no corresponding, unquestionable standard of comparison. You can't say that yours is the authentic one, the real one, and all the others are fake copies. Maybe yours was merely the first draft Christianity, and others corrected its imperfections. Maybe God will add a Even Newer Testament that renders the 1st two worthless. Or perhaps Christianity isn't the way to go, at all. Maybe the Muslims are right.

Maybe Christianity itself can't even "tell time," in this analogy. How would we know? There's another major difference: we can check a watch's accuracy with physical means, but we can't check a religion's accuracy except by dying.

When talking to an atheist, telling him that he is describing a fake version of Christianity is about as relevant as a Star Wars fanboy arguing that his favorite mythology is more realistic than a Star Trek fanboy's favorite mythology. To someone on the outside, the debate looks hopelessly silly.

Well good gravy, Malik - if analogies must always be limited to physical artifacts, or to other phenomenon of precisely the same type, then we'll have to throw a lot of analogies historically made out the window.

Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle actually used a wider notion of analogy. They saw analogy as a shared abstraction (Shelley 2003). Analogous objects did not share necessarily a relation, but also an idea, a pattern, a regularity, an attribute, an effect or a function. These authors also accepted that comparisons, metaphors and "images" (allegories) could be used as valid arguments, and sometimes they called them analogies. Analogies should also make those abstractions easier to understand and give confidence to the ones using them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

Main Entry:
anal·o·gy
Pronunciation:
\ə-ˈna-lə-jē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural anal·o·gies
Date:
15th century

1: inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others2 a: resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : similarity b: comparison based on such resemblance3: correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for the creation of another form4: correspondence in function between anatomical parts of different structure and origin — compare homology
synonyms see likeness

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogy

Your logic is good enough if you limit analogies to like objects (same category or type) - but there is no reason to limit it to that. (Hoping not to seem patronizing - just want to establish that my use of analogy may be valid - you may disagree with the analogy, or think it a bad one - but you can't deny that it is an analogy

You know, I've been reading Chesterton's "The Ball and the Cross". www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/ball_and_cross.txt
It's a fast read - I think you'd like it. A central theme is that a Christian and an atheist committed to a duel to the death find that they have something critical in common - they both believe that ideas and words are important, worth fighting for, and the true antagonists in the book are revealed to be the people that believe they are not (the majority).

Evan remained in an unmoved and grave attitude. "There is a part
of me which is divine," he answered, "a part that can be trusted,
but there are also affections which are entirely animal and idle."

"And you are quite certain, I suppose," continued Turnbull, "that if
even you esteem me the esteem would be wholly animal and idle?"
For the first time MacIan started as if he had not expected the thing
that was said to him. At last he said:

"Whatever in earth or heaven it is that has joined us two together,
it seems to be something which makes it impossible to lie. No, I do
not think that the movement in me towards you was...was that surface
sort of thing. It may have been something deeper...something strange.
I cannot understand the thing at all. But understand this and
understand it thoroughly, if I loved you my love might be divine.
No, it is not some trifle that we are fighting about. It is not
some superstition or some symbol. When you wrote those words about
Our Lady, you were in that act a wicked man doing a wicked thing.
If I hate you it is because you have hated goodness.
And if I like you...it is because you are good."

Turnbull's face wore an indecipherable expression.

"Well, shall we fight now?" he said.

"Yes," said MacIan, with a sudden contraction of his black brows,
"yes, it must be now."

The bright swords crossed, and the first touch of them,
travelling down blade and arm, told each combatant that the heart
of the other was awakened.

I'll bet we could become really good friends!

[Tjol]

Sorry, this will be out of sequence with the running conversation, but it's closer to topic here, than in the Think Tank... if it should be broken out into a seperate thread, that's fine by me.

At the end of Job, all the things taken from him were restored. Job (the book) is at times complicated, but that detail isn't one that you should have missed.

Uh, so it's alright to take everything from somebody, and subject them to all kinds of suffering, as long as you give them new stuff afterwards? I don't think so. (There's a thread in the Close where I was discussing Job with somebody...if you have a different take on it, than I did there, I'd be interested to hear it. ) (Edit: Found the Link)

It was repaid with interest. We all suffer things in life so that we can acheive something greater. I can understand how Job reads like some mash-up of the Greek gods (and their vanities) with the Hebrew God. I can see God as being suggested to have vanity for using a human to prove a point with Satan. An apologetic could also suggest that it was for Job's glory (ala Achilles) that he was allowed to suffer Satan's cruelties. A different apologetic could suggest that Job is simply about God's faith in mankind, as an answer to the long running question of why God allowed free will, and by consequence sin, to exist in the world.

I have to sit down and read Job through all the way again to discuss more than the general themes though. I'll try to remember to come back to that thread. In my opinion, Job is almost as complicated as Revelations (Revelation because of all the metaphors and symbolism with not as much in the way for literal interpretation (outside of the letters to the churches of course), Job because it's contents are of bigger things than just the events told, Job is only one person, but he also signifies humanity as a whole and their relationship with God and/or Satan

[Avatar]

Nah, no problems. The running conversation ended far longer ago than I'd remembered anyway.

It was repaid with interest. We all suffer things in life so that we can acheive something greater.

Well, apart from observing that plenty of people suffer terrible things without ever getting anything greater, I don't think the fact that it was repaid with interest makes any difference.

Indeed, one could argue that it makes it even worse. Job didn't achieve something greater, it was given to him like weregild...suffering price. Either it was compensation for the things that were done to him to prove god's point, or it was a reward for submitting to god's will no matter what was done to him.

--A

[Tjol]

Nah, no problems. The running conversation ended far longer ago than I'd remembered anyway.

It was repaid with interest. We all suffer things in life so that we can acheive something greater.

Well, apart from observing that plenty of people suffer terrible things without ever getting anything greater, I don't think the fact that it was repaid with interest makes any difference.

Indeed, one could argue that it makes it even worse. Job didn't achieve something greater, it was given to him like weregild...suffering price. Either it was compensation for the things that were done to him to prove god's point, or it was a reward for submitting to god's will no matter what was done to him.

--A

I think if Job had not suffered, then he wouldn't have acheived anything. As it is, he acheived in surviving Satan's attempts to break him.

Repaid with interest does in some regard make a difference. It suggests compassion for the suffering.

Let us also look at culpability here. If Job at the first tragedy had shook his fist at the sky and questioned God, he would not have suffered any farther. If a marathon runner chooses to run 50 miles, is it the marathon organisers fault that a marathon of 50 miles imposes a hardship upon the runner?

Just something else to consider, that Job was willing to take on the burden, to prove himself greater than it.

[aliantha]

Repaid with interest does in some regard make a difference. It suggests compassion for the suffering.

Trying to wrap my brain around this. So it's okay for a god to kick some poor b*stard repeatedly, to the point where he has less than nothing, as long as the god then compensates him for his suffering? It's okay to destroy someone as long as you're compassionate to him afterward?

If it's not okay when people do it to each other, why is it okay for God to do it to Job? Why does God get a pass on His behavior?

(And I kind of wish you guys would've started a new thread -- every time I scroll down in this one, I think for a minute that Rus is back... )

[Tjol]

Repaid with interest does in some regard make a difference. It suggests compassion for the suffering.

Trying to wrap my brain around this. So it's okay for a god to kick some poor b*stard repeatedly, to the point where he has less than nothing, as long as the god then compensates him for his suffering? It's okay to destroy someone as long as you're compassionate to him afterward?

What you seem to missing entirely, as well as everyone who thinkgs they've found a foothold in this, is that God did not himself do any harm to Job. Satan is the one who decided to use Job to make a point (or try to anyways).

(And I kind of wish you guys would've started a new thread -- every time I scroll down in this one, I think for a minute that Rus is back... )

What happened to Rus?

[aliantha]

What you seem to missing entirely, as well as everyone who thinkgs they've found a foothold in this, is that God did not himself do any harm to Job. Satan is the one who decided to use Job to make a point (or try to anyways).

The gods know that Wikipedia could be wrong -- but apparently Yahweh was no passive bystander:

In brief, the book begins with an introduction to Job's character — he is described as a blessed man who lives righteously. Satan, however, challenges Job's integrity, proposing to Yahweh (God) that Job serves him simply because of the "hedge" with which God protects him. God progressively removes that protection, allowing Satan to take his wealth, his children, and his physical health and to thereby tempt Job to curse God. However, despite his desolation, he does not curse God's name or accuse God of injustice but rather seeks an explanation or an account of his wrongdoing.

The wiki goes on to say that scholars believe Job may be the oldest book in the Bible; I'd hazard a guess that the story is adapted from a much older myth. Altho apparently (again from the wiki) "a majority of Rabbinical Torah scholars saw Job as having existed in real life". Still, that doesn't preclude the adaptation of an older story to fit details of the life of a real Jewish patriarch.

What happened to Rus?

My take is that he was trying to get people to read Chesterton and C.S. Lewis in order to force them into the same epiphany he himself had had about Christianity. When he eventually realized that he was getting no takers, he left. That's only my opinion, tho.

[Avatar]

As it is, he acheived in surviving Satan's attempts to break him.

Unfortunately no time for more than this tonight...

But it was God's attempt to break him...

--A

[Tjol]

As it is, he acheived in surviving Satan's attempts to break him.

Unfortunately no time for more than this tonight...

But it was God's attempt to break him...

--A

How?

[Avatar]

Ok, well, I've thought about this a little more since I posted, and technically it wasn't.

But nothing would have happened to the poor bugger if god hadn't said "look how awesome Job is," and then followed it up by saying, "Ok, go ahead and try breaking him. Do anything you want."

God caused suffering to be visited on Job, to prove that his hold on him was so strong that nothing could break it.

And to prove it to Satan no less. Why would he even need to prove such a thing?

--A

[aliantha]

That's what makes me think the story itself is older than Christianity. I can't think of another Bible story in which God and Satan essentially have a bet -- tho I'll admit that I'm no Biblical scholar.

[Tjol]

Ok, well, I've thought about this a little more since I posted, and technically it wasn't.

But nothing would have happened to the poor bugger if god hadn't said "look how awesome Job is," and then followed it up by saying, "Ok, go ahead and try breaking him. Do anything you want."

God caused suffering to be visited on Job, to prove that his hold on him was so strong that nothing could break it.

And to prove it to Satan no less. Why would he even need to prove such a thing?

--A

God doesn't need to 'prove' anything, because he is all-knowing, right? He knows Job will suceed, and he knows that Job will make profit from the hardship.

Job proves something. Satan attempts to 'prove' something. Job wins.

Technically I only mentioned it for the sake of reflection by anyone who would reflect on it. Most who would rest all the blame on God, haven't reflected on Satan or Job and what level of blame they hold in the events that took place.

I assume if you've read Job, you've read Ecclesiastes. Similar questions can be asked of Ecclesiastes, and more can actually be asked of Ecclesiastes, which suggests the wicked and righteousness drink from same cup during the days on the earth. Righteousness is done for it's own sake, not for the sake of reward. That righteousness can be done for it's own reward, is the point.

As I pondered, Job may simply be God's answer for the question, 'Why did you allow the existence of evil?' his answer seeming to be that evil does not preclude good, that we can be as good as we want to be, regardless of whether the world around us chooses to follow our example or not.

[Fist and Faith]

Didn't a whole lot of other people besides Job suffer? Horrible deaths and stuff? Pretty nasty thing to do that, or allow it to be done, to the others just to test Job.

Righteousness is done for it's own sake, not for the sake of reward.

Amen!

As I pondered, Job may simply be God's answer for the question, 'Why did you allow the existence of evil?' his answer seeming to be that evil does not preclude good, that we can be as good as we want to be, regardless of whether the world around us chooses to follow our example or not.

There's no such thing as good if there is no such thing as evil.

[Kinslaughterer]

Job is one of the earliest direct mentions of Satan/Devil/Lucifer etc. The serpent is mentioned in Genesis but not as the personifed adversary. Very important not on botht the origins of the Devil and Hell. They are late add-ons for Judeo-Christians.

[Avatar]

God doesn't need to 'prove' anything, because he is all-knowing, right? He knows Job will suceed, and he knows that Job will make profit from the hardship.

So why put Job through it if he knew he would succeed?

I can't think of another Bible story in which God and Satan essentially have a bet...

Well, it's old testament. Long before Satan becomes the "cause of evil" or whatever in Christianity. Notice at the beginning of the book, Satan is counted among gods children, and god didn't know what he'd been up to.

The changing role of Lucifer in Christianity has always been interesting to me. It was only relatively recently in the history of the religion that he became "the adversary."

--A

[aliantha]

Well, that's true. It still seems, I dunno, out of character for God. But as you say, this is Old Testament.

I was thinking today about something, tho: Doesn't the story show that Job didn't *need* God? He wasn't being a good man in order to stay in God's good graces, or as a quid pro quo for God's protection and blessings. He was a good man because it was the right thing to be. Kinda puts paid to the notion among some Protestants that man is inherently evil and needs God's direction to lead a moral life, doesn't it?

And too, it reminds me of Covenant's choice to help in the Land regardless of whether it was real. It's all about whether you can live with yourself.

[Tjol]

God doesn't need to 'prove' anything, because he is all-knowing, right? He knows Job will suceed, and he knows that Job will make profit from the hardship.

So why put Job through it if he knew he would succeed?

Why should a person be given the opportunity to live a single day of life on earth if they are not all going to be perfect days?

[Fist and Faith]

Well, I still say that it's not an even exchange if my children were killed, but I had more.

[stonemaybe]

Well, I still say that it's not an even exchange if my children were killed, but I had more.

Not even if the new ones were better looking?