Kevin's Watch

Yes, some Africans who were slaves in America had been slaves in Africa. And the whites didn't venture into Africa hunting for people to drag out in chains; other Africans captured them and dragged them out. Nevertheless, ali's point is still true. In many cases, whites thought they were created in God's image, were his most beloved, and, therefore, were perfectly enitled to own and horrifically abuse blacks. When they wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." in the Declaration of Indepencence, they were only talking about themselves - white males.

And other groups of people thought the same things about themselves.

rusmeister wrote: It's clear that the book of Job is being misinterpreted/misunderstood on the most simplistic level possible (probably a result of just reading about the general plot with no exploration of the questions).

Actually, I'm relatively familiar with the book, but I'll review it quickly...

In Job 1 was wrote:1There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil...

So Job is established as perfect and upright.

In Job 1 was wrote:...6Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

7And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

8And 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?

9Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?

10Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.

11But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.

12And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD...

So, God points out Job to Satan, saying "look how wonderful he is," and Satan replies by saying, "Does he fear you without reason? Of course he's worshipful, he has everything he wants, give him calamity and he'll curse you."

So God tells him to take everything Job has.

In the next few verses, Satan does. His family are all killed, his possessions, wealth and livelihood are taken, and while Job mourns, he still worships God, saying that if God gave him all this, God can take it away.

In Job 2 was wrote:1Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

2And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

3And 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.

So now God again points out Job, saying, "Even though you moved me against Job, to destroy him without cause, he still worships and obeys me."

So, in the next few verses, with God's permission, Satan takes Job's health, since that is the next justification Satan gives for Job's continued worship. But Job does not relent in his acceptance of his suffering, even when urged to be wife and friends.

He does start to complain though...almost begging God for an explanation...

In Job 3 was wrote:...11Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?

12Why did the knees prevent me? or why the breasts that I should suck?

13For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept: then had I been at rest...

...20Wherefore is light given to him that is in misery, and life unto the bitter in soul;

21Which long for death, but it cometh not; and dig for it more than for hid treasures;

22Which rejoice exceedingly, and are glad, when they can find the grave? ...

...25For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me.

26I was not in safety, neither had I rest, neither was I quiet; yet trouble came.

His friend replies, and one part of his reply particularly strikes me:

In Job 5 was wrote:17Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty...

Job however pleads for understanding:

In Job 6 was wrote:24Teach me, and I will hold my tongue: and cause me to understand wherein I have erred.

He seems to be saying that if God will just tell him what the lesson is, let him know where he went wrong, he could accept it more easily, and make it right.

He even thinks at first that he must have sinned, to be so punished.

In Job 7 was wrote:20I have sinned; what shall I do unto thee, O thou preserver of men? why hast thou set me as a mark against thee, so that I am a burden to myself?

21And why dost thou not pardon my transgression, and take away my iniquity? for now shall I sleep in the dust; and thou shalt seek me in the morning, but I shall not be.

Of course, he hasn't sinned, as we know. This continues in the same vein while the rest of his friends speak, basically insisting he must have sinned, but Job, although fearful that he has, still says that he is being punished for nothing. Job almost demands to know why he bothers, if all his good godfearing ways still lead to this. No matter what he does, he feels, God will still punish him.

And there is an interesting comment he makes about that fear:

In Job 9 was wrote:34Let him take his rod away from me, and let not his fear terrify me:

35Then would I speak, and not fear him; but it is not so with me.

Seems to be saying that if he wasn't terrified, he would speak his mind.

In Job 31 was wrote:3Is not destruction to the wicked? and a strange punishment to the workers of iniquity?

4Doth not he see my ways, and count all my steps?

5If I have walked with vanity, or if my foot hath hasted to deceit;

6Let me be weighed in an even balance that God may know mine integrity.

Job knows that God isn't being fair to him. After more of this, the final onlooker speaks:

In Job 33 was wrote:2Behold, in this thou art not just: I will answer thee, that God is greater than man.

13Why dost thou strive against him? for he giveth not account of any of his matters.

Telling him, effectively, not to question God.

Now God finally answers Job, (if you can call it that):

In Job 38 was wrote:1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

2Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

3Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Basically saying that since Job isn't an omnipotent being, he doesn't have the right to question him, or the ability to understand...

In Job 40 was wrote: 1Moreover the LORD answered Job, and said,

2Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.

After this catalogue of Gods feats and abilities, Job is humbled, and tells God,

In Job 42 was wrote:2I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.

3Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.

4Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.

5I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.

6Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

So, because he couldn't do all the things that God did, and didn't know everything God knew, Job accepted Gods right to do whatever he wanted. Afterwhich of course, God not only replaced everything, but replaced it with more than he had.

That about cover it? Right...on to the interpretations you posted.

HE PURPOSE OF THE BOOK: It is common to suggest that the purpose of the book is to answer the age-old question, "Why does God allow the righteous to suffer?"

That is certainly the question Job raises, but it is worthy to note that he himself never receives a direct answer. Nor is one given by the author, other than to answer Satan's challenge, "Does Job fear God for nothing?".

We are privileged to know of the challenge of Satan, and that God allows Job to suffer in answer to that challenge, but Job is never told of this. Therefore, I suggest that the purpose of the book is:

To answer the question, "How should the righteous suffer?"

While Job's questions and complaints often come close to charging God
with wrong, he never crosses the line and humbly submits to God when
told that the answers to his questions are beyond his ability to
understand. Thus the book shows us how the righteous should bear up
under suffering...

I'm afraid that these, rather than dispelling my view of the book, tend to reinforce it. First, we have the traditional question, which the author points out is not answered, except as an answer to Satans challenge...Satan challenged, "Does Job fear God for nothing?" In other words, can you give him a reason to fear you? And of course, he can, and Job knows it, as we see from Job 9:34.

So, because that's not a great reason for the book, he suggests another: How should the righteous suffer?

He argues that because Job never actually charged God with doing wrong, (despite strong implication), and because he accepts the claim that he can't understand why he suffered, he should just accept it. So, the purpose of the book he feels, is to instruct people that bad things happen, and you should live with it.

Of course, if we accept the book's premise, that should be amended to, God does bad things to people, and they should accept it without blaming him of wrongdoing, even if they don't deserve what he's doing to them.

SOME LESSONS FROM THE BOOK:

* The book defends the absolute glory and perfection of God...God is deserving of our praise simply on the basis of who He is, apart from the blessings He bestows.

Now, that last line I'd go for, because it's not supposed to be about what you get...but the logical follow-up to that is that he is worthy of praise, regardless of the...suffering...he inflicts too. And I don't think inflicting suffering is particularly praiseworthy.

* The question of suffering is addressed - Why do we suffer? Who
or what causes it? Why doesn't God do something? Not all
questions are answered, but some important points are made:

- Man is unable to subject the painful experiences of human
existence to a meaningful analysis - God's workings are
beyond man's ability to fathom. Man simply cannot tie all
the "loose ends" of the Lord's purposes together. We must
learn to trust in God, no matter the circumstances.

So, our suffering is deliberate and inflicted in the name of some greater purpose that we can't fathom? And we must trust that God has a reason? (Maybe he does, but the reason in this book seems to be that he wanted to prove a point to Satan. That really doesn't seem worth the lives of Jobs children for a start...)

- Suffering is not always the result of personal sin - The
erroneous conclusion drawn by Job's friends is that suffering
is always a consequence of sin. Job proves this is not the
case.

I would agree with that, except that according to this, it appears to be a consequence of Gods desire to prove a point.

- God allowed Job to suffer to prove to Satan what kind of man
he really was.

To sum up, as I said in my previous post, it looks like God allowed / caused Job's suffering in order to prove his point to Satan, and these interpretations seem to bear out my point of view. I'll concede I was wrong about God making the bet in the first place. But he set it up by pointing Job out. He may also have been trying to teach people that they have to accept their suffering uncomplainingly, but sometimes that's not the best thing to do either.

--A

rusmeister wrote:

Malik23 wrote:Rus, so do you admit that anything which lacks an immortal soul has no meaning? I notice you didn't address this point. Yet, you must believe it, if you think death and finitude robs people of meaning.

Therefore, given this conclusion we must make in order to accept your view, everything in the vast realm of creation--except us--must be meaningless. Why would God create such a plethora of pointlessness?

Following this line of reasoning, our views are actually pretty similar. We both think that the universe in general has no objective meaning. We both make an exception for humans. I exclude humans from the general meaninglessness of the universe in virtue of their created, subjective meaning. You exclude humans from the general meaninglessness surrounding them by supposing they have an eternal soul which sets them apart from the dying world around them.

However, your view is contradictory, because you must simultaneously admit the meaninglessness of the universe (except us), while maintaining an over-arching objective meaning. Why doesn't this objective meaning save the rest of the universe from being pointless, too? And if this "surrounding" objective meaning (the equivalent of water, in your desert analogy) gives finite, soulless objects meaning, then why wouldn't this apply to humans, too? If that were true, then we wouldn't have to have immortal souls in order for our lives to be meaningful. Which undermines your claim that eternity is necessary for meaning. Which is why I say your view is contradictory.

The only way to escape this contradiction is to admit that the rest of the universe is meaningless, since it doesn't have a soul and it's not eternal. But then it becomes very strange to say that meaning is objective, if it leaves out most of reality.

Thanks for responding, Malik!

I think you're kind of jumping the gun and assuming my view. I'm saying that the meaning of all is provided by God, and that without God, it all becomes meaningless.

I appreciate the time you took to write that, but it just doesn't follow because it wasn't dealing with what I'm really saying.

I'm not assuming your view. I'm showing you the contradictory conclusions which can be derived from it (or at least the way you have stated it).

You have said that if this life is all there is--that if there is no afterlife--then our lives are essentially meaningless, because whatever meaning we may have had for a little while ends with our death. You've said that unless meaning is eternal, it is meaningless.

Now, based on these simple claims, you must concede that everything which doesn't last forever and gain admittance into the afterlife is meaningless. And 99.999999999999% of everything in the universe falls into that category. Therefore, you must conclude that God created a meaningless, superfluous Creation.

However, I suspect that you don't really think the universe is meaningless. In the above post, you even provide the mechanism by which it can have meaning without entering the afterlife and lasting forever: "I'm saying that the meaning of all is provided by God, and that without God, it all becomes meaningless." So if God "watching from above" can give finite, soulless objects meaning, then eternity and afterlife aren't necessary for meaning. And that contradicts nearly every post you've made here, where you've argued that if our lifespans are finite, with no afterlife, then all of our meaning passes away and become meaningless.

So which is it? Is the rest of the universe meaningless? Or is your argument about eternity false? You can't have it both ways. You can't say that humans require eternity in order to have meaning, but let the rest of the universe off the hook.

Rusmeister wrote:Malik, scientists are merely your priests, and you have as much faith, blind faith, in them, as you accuse believers of.

Didn't you chide me about assuming your beliefs? And yet you so readily assume mine.

No, I don't have blind faith in scientists. I can see them.

I'm typing on a machine right now that engineers created using scientific principles. It doesn't take blind faith to believe that they may be on to something. I see their predictions come true time after time. What is blind about that?

In discussions like this, we see this criticism often. "Scientists are your priests, science is your religion." I suspect that religious people say this to make themselves feel better, because they know that their faith is blind and can't argue against that. So they simply point their finger and accuse others of having the same fault. The difference between believing in real people performing real acts of demonstrable worth (science), and believing in supernatural entities who perform supernatural acts of unverifiable worth, is VAST. I find it troubling that you can't tell the difference. This inability to tell the difference is one of the main reason why I doubt your beliefs in the first place. You think supernatural entities require no more faith than empirically verifiable entities.

Here's a question for all those who think that science is religion, and religion (in the guise of creationism) is actually a science: what technology has anyone ever invented using the principles of creation science?

Puzzle that one out and get back to me.

Malik23 wrote:

rusmeister wrote:

Malik23 wrote:Rus, so do you admit that anything which lacks an immortal soul has no meaning? I notice you didn't address this point. Yet, you must believe it, if you think death and finitude robs people of meaning.

Therefore, given this conclusion we must make in order to accept your view, everything in the vast realm of creation--except us--must be meaningless. Why would God create such a plethora of pointlessness?

Following this line of reasoning, our views are actually pretty similar. We both think that the universe in general has no objective meaning. We both make an exception for humans. I exclude humans from the general meaninglessness of the universe in virtue of their created, subjective meaning. You exclude humans from the general meaninglessness surrounding them by supposing they have an eternal soul which sets them apart from the dying world around them.

However, your view is contradictory, because you must simultaneously admit the meaninglessness of the universe (except us), while maintaining an over-arching objective meaning. Why doesn't this objective meaning save the rest of the universe from being pointless, too? And if this "surrounding" objective meaning (the equivalent of water, in your desert analogy) gives finite, soulless objects meaning, then why wouldn't this apply to humans, too? If that were true, then we wouldn't have to have immortal souls in order for our lives to be meaningful. Which undermines your claim that eternity is necessary for meaning. Which is why I say your view is contradictory.

The only way to escape this contradiction is to admit that the rest of the universe is meaningless, since it doesn't have a soul and it's not eternal. But then it becomes very strange to say that meaning is objective, if it leaves out most of reality.

Thanks for responding, Malik!

I think you're kind of jumping the gun and assuming my view. I'm saying that the meaning of all is provided by God, and that without God, it all becomes meaningless.

I appreciate the time you took to write that, but it just doesn't follow because it wasn't dealing with what I'm really saying.

I'm not assuming your view. I'm showing you the contradictory conclusions which can be derived from it (or at least the way you have stated it).

You have said that if this life is all there is--that if there is no afterlife--then our lives are essentially meaningless, because whatever meaning we may have had for a little while ends with our death. You've said that unless meaning is eternal, it is meaningless.

Now, based on these simple claims, you must concede that everything which doesn't last forever and gain admittance into the afterlife is meaningless. And 99.999999999999% of everything in the universe falls into that category. Therefore, you must conclude that God created a meaningless, superfluous Creation.

However, I suspect that you don't really think the universe is meaningless. In the above post, you even provide the mechanism by which it can have meaning without entering the afterlife and lasting forever: "I'm saying that the meaning of all is provided by God, and that without God, it all becomes meaningless." So if God "watching from above" can give finite, soulless objects meaning, then eternity and afterlife aren't necessary for meaning. And that contradicts nearly every post you've made here, where you've argued that if our lifespans are finite, with no afterlife, then all of our meaning passes away and become meaningless.

So which is it? Is the rest of the universe meaningless? Or is your argument about eternity false? You can't have it both ways. You can't say that humans require eternity in order to have meaning, but let the rest of the universe off the hook.

Hey, Malik!
Thanks for your patience!
You're still misconstruing my stand, though. Perhaps some ways I word things is not always clear - I'll do my best.

You're evidently jumping back and forth between assumptions I temporarily accept in coming from materialism (which I ultimately reject) and what I actually believe.

If there is no God there is no meaning. Or as Chesterton succinctly put it, "If there were no God, there would be no atheists." If God is, then everything has meaning. Once you admit that God is, then everything else follows. Things temporal only have their meaning in the context of eternity.

In arguing from materialism I was merely pointing out how there is no eternal meaning, and ultimately, no meaning. I am not actually adopting materialist assumptions.

Hopefully that cleared things up a little...

Malik23 wrote:

Rusmeister wrote:Malik, scientists are merely your priests, and you have as much faith, blind faith, in them, as you accuse believers of.

Didn't you chide me about assuming your beliefs? And yet you so readily assume mine.

No, I don't have blind faith in scientists. I can see them.

I'm typing on a machine right now that engineers created using scientific principles. It doesn't take blind faith to believe that they may be on to something. I see their predictions come true time after time. What is blind about that?

In discussions like this, we see this criticism often. "Scientists are your priests, science is your religion." I suspect that religious people say this to make themselves feel better, because they know that their faith is blind and can't argue against that. So they simply point their finger and accuse others of having the same fault. The difference between believing in real people performing real acts of demonstrable worth (science), and believing in supernatural entities who perform supernatural acts of unverifiable worth, is VAST. I find it troubling that you can't tell the difference. This inability to tell the difference is one of the main reason why I doubt your beliefs in the first place. You think supernatural entities require no more faith than empirically verifiable entities.

Here's a question for all those who think that science is religion, and religion (in the guise of creationism) is actually a science: what technology has anyone ever invented using the principles of creation science?

Puzzle that one out and get back to me.

It seems kind of futile trying to point out that the philosophical base of your position, in general, places your faith in science and what science discovers, and that anything not definable by science gets rejected. Materialism. Whatever you accept as final authority is what you 'believe in', and it certainly appears that science is your final authority for your philosophy. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's sure how I've read you all this time.
Again, many things in human experience are not demonstrable for the simple fact that they are not repeatable. In addition, if religious posits are true (on the mere existence of a Creator), then you couldn't perform experiments by asking the Creator to do something on command, like a trained animal.

You think supernatural entities require no more faith than empirically verifiable entities.

This, unfortunately, is not true. I do not think that. I think that empirically verifiable entities do NOT require faith, precisely because I can confirm their existence. Faith is a choice you make, to believe or not, where you CAN'T 'prove' something. Hopefully, you will acknowledge that I have been saying this consistently. For this reason I will concede that I misspoke in saying you have faith in what you can see. I guess what I really want to say is that as far as I can tell, your belief is limited to what you can sense.

Rus,

If there is no God there is no meaning. If God is, then everything has meaning. Once you admit that God is, then everything else follows. Things temporal only have their meaning in the context of eternity.

But if temporal things don't have to go to the afterlife to have meaning, then why do humans? If flowers can have meaning merely by the existence of God and the "context of eternity", then why can't humans, too?

How is it that the meaning of something is not within itself, but in something else?

What gives God meaning? If he can give himself meaning, then why can't I?

It seems kind of futile trying to point out that the philosophical base of your position, in general, places your faith in science and what science discovers, and that anything not definable by science gets rejected. Materialism. Whatever you accept as final authority is what you 'believe in', and it certainly appears that science is your final authority for your philosophy. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's sure how I've read you all this time.

I don't place my faith in science. A testable belief is not the same as blind faith. Faith requires no evidence. Belief in science is founded on evidence, by definition, since science is an empirical project.

I don't reject things undefinable by science. I haven't rejected the Flying Spaghetti Monster on the basis that science hasn't yet proven it. I simply don't believe in things which haven't yet presented evidence of themselves. This isn't a materialist assumption. I believe in love, and that's not material. I believe in math, and that's not material. I'm not a materialist. I'm a neutral monist.

I don't treat science as a metaphysic or an ontology. I treat it as a methodology.

This, unfortunately, is not true. I do not think that. I think that empirically verifiable entities do NOT require faith, precisely because I can confirm their existence. Faith is a choice you make, to believe or not, where you CAN'T 'prove' something. Hopefully, you will acknowledge that I have been saying this consistently. For this reason I will concede that I misspoke in saying you have faith in what you can see. I guess what I really want to say is that as far as I can tell, your belief is limited to what you can sense.

Fair enough. I will acknowledge that you have been saying this, although not consistently (i.e. that one post).

My belief is indeed limited to my experience--what I can experience. I don't see how it can be otherwise, unless you are going to acknowledge that it's reasonable to believe in anything. Aren't there things you don't believe in? Aren't you an atheist with regards to the 1000s of other gods people have believed in through out history? On what basis have you rejected Thor, the god of Thunder? Using this example, couldn't someone accuse you of not believing in something that you haven't experienced?

I am personally more inclined to think of Job as a Fable. But it is certainly a fable that was written for Hebrews some 2000 or more years ago. It requires some context. One is that Hebrews then always thought whenever someone met misfortune, it meant that it was God's punishment. In their way of thinking, since God is responsible for everything (which is not as universal a belief as it once was.) He is responsible for bad things happening too. It HAD to be God being horrible to Job for the story to have any relevance to the Hebrews of the time. (Note that I personally adhere more to Locke, Hume, and Jefferson's "Clockmaker" God than this)

Yes, God is horrible to Job for reasons that seem pretty petty. But the point is that the friends of Job trying to interpret the will of God are flat out wrong. The will of God is unknowable. We are generally inclined to believe he likes us and wants us to be happy, but even that's up for debate. The point is, when people start condemning others because they claim to know the will of God, they are flat out wrong. No one can perfectly interpret God's design.

But that's only a fragment of this story. It has layers and layers of wisdom inside of it. Most Christians are bad enough at reading the Bible's Context. (Hell, most of them think it was penned by God himself one sunny afternoon a few hundred years ago) This is a collection of poems, fables, and histories ranging from 1700 to 3000 years old. That's a HUGE span of time. It takes intense study to be able to read the context. (Revelation is a matter of hot and fierce debate.)

The Dreaming wrote:Yes, God is horrible to Job for reasons that seem pretty petty. But the point is that the friends of Job trying to interpret the will of God are flat out wrong.

No, the point is that God is horrible to Job for reasons that seem pretty petty. And, again (since this is how Job got into this thread in the first place ), if I was convinced that this version of the Christian God existed, I would most certainly not become one of his followers.

But, again again, I know there are possibly Christians who do not believe God could ever have done such a thing.

But, more than anything else, this quote, from a guy I used to email a lot with (He found a site about comic books I once had when he was searching for info on Shang Chi, and we were soon talking about everything else in the world. ), is what I consider the best possible interpretation of the Bible:

There are errors about natural processes, historical inaccuracies, and contradictions galore! What I am committed to is taking the Bible seriously. Not as a basic text on physical science, biology or even history, but as the faithful attempt by many authors to tell the story of God's relationship to people. It tells me a great deal about who God is, and in the process I learn about who I am as well.

Different people wrote about how they felt about God, and everything. Viewed in that light, it can probably teach anybody things about themself.

I think avatar's post deserves a serious response, so will get back to it - but for a quickie on Job- you guys apparently missed my earlier comment on the mythological nature of the interaction between Satan and God, and another thing worth keeping in mind that if eternity is all that really matters, and the temporal things of worth will be restored in eternity, then their destruction in this life is both inevitable and (by comparison) unimportant. Your friend's statement, F+F, is pretty close to what I would say as well.

Maybe what is confusing for some that Christianity is full of paradoxes (ex - he that would save his life must give it up, and Christ by dying defeated death - death still claims us, but we, as Christians , need not fear it so, etc) . I imagine that may be why it seems that Christians like me sometimes contradict ourselves when in fact we are trying to express deep truths about faith.

I'm pretty sure I called Job a fable, not a history. It's unwise to take it literally. The writer of Job can no more know the will of God than Job's friends can. It was a story written for a purpose. It wasn't to convince us that God is our super best friend. (That's what the New Testament is for) It was to convince a people who were basically barely a step above complete savagery not to condemn people who meet bad luck.

Taking the Bible absolutely literally is an exercise in insanity. (Especially the part's that were actually meant to be figurative.) God didn't pen Job, a man did. He was writing for a specific purpose, and he expressed it beautifully, never mind that in his story, God is on a first name basis with the Devil and he punishes his most faithful follower for absolutely no good reason.

Let's face it, the Hebrew God is a dick. Do Christians believe he just "softened up" by the time Christ came around? I certainly don't think so. Hebrews interpreted these events differently because they were a dramatically different people than early Christians. If I were to take every story in the Old Testament at face value I would have to reject God. For Chrisesake's Elijah, the Prophet, calls upon the power of God to summon some bears to eat some kids for making fun of his Baldness. He Turns Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for looking back at Gammorah. He tells Isaac to kill his son, then pulls a "psych' on him at the last second. It's like God is hosting a reality T.V. Show on MTV in the Old Testament.

Does this mean that it's garbage? Hell no, but you have to know how to read this stuff.

Good post. I for one certainly don't take it literally, but I'm working from what exists and is available to everybody. It's all very well to say that it depends on interpretation, but pretty much anything can be explained away or rationalised on that basis.

And that's why I repeatedly say that since even christians can't agree on what explanation is real, is it really so surprising that no bunch of christians thinks any non-christian has a flawed view on christianity?

2,000 years on, even the believers haven't decided on what christianity means. All we can go on is how we've experienced it through all kinds of encounters.

And then are told that those encounters don't represent christianity...(which obviously they can't becaus eof the incredible internal differences.

So I like to use the bible as my foundation for considering christianity, as that's fairly, although not entirely, the same across sects. Everybody got the same message...now they're doing what they like with it. Well, me too.

--A

And there are people who think God did pen Job. My brother is one of them. He's a Presbyterian pastor. (I call him the black sheep of the family. ) It's from 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

God wrote:16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

I think "inspired" is used more often than "breathed." But those who interpret this translation the way my brother does say that God put the exact words into the writers' heads. *shrug* But, as rus said, not all Christians are alike.

I've said it before, and I realize the opinion of one of my mindset doesn't much count in this situation, but it seems to me that "Christian" simply means Follower of Christ. All the other qualifiers I've heard (You must believe in the trinity, for example.) seem to me to just be ways for some to give themselves a superior feeling.

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:And nicely answered by ali. It's not a choice. I can't decide to believe all these things I don't believe any more than you can decide to not believe them.

You know, I (as an agnostic) felt the same way. I thought of it as being unable to "push a belief button".
But yes you can. It really comes down to choice...

So then you're saying that you woke up one morning, and, for no reason at all, simply decided to believe what you had never believed before? You hadn't always been struggling with certain feelings, and finally decided to try embracing them? Or, nothing in particular made you decide you wanted to believe?

rusmeister wrote:. . . and another thing worth keeping in mind that if eternity is all that really matters, and the temporal things of worth will be restored in eternity, then their destruction in this life is both inevitable and (by comparison) unimportant.

That's a REALLY big "if." I think everyone here can guess my view on this statement. But let's just imagine for a moment that there is no eternity, there is no afterlife, and that Christians are fooling themselves into believing a myth. (This proposal isn't foolish by any means. After all, there are many different myths of an afterlife, many of which are discounted even by those who believe in a different kind of afterlife than the ones they, too, reject. In the end, there is absolutely no evidence for eternity.)

Ok, we're imagining. Just like John Lennon. There's no heaven. Now, under this perspective, the justification of the Job story can't be viewed in any other way than an inauthentic denial of life. Not only are Christians willing to excuse God's capricious causation of suffering among even those who are righteous and loyal, but Christians are also willing to downplay this intentional causing of suffering by a "loving" God by downplaying the worth of this world and this life. THAT is what I mean by accusing this worldview of life-denying, world-denying.

As far as we know, this life is all we get. Everything else is just a guess. And yet, even though this is all we know, some of you are willing to downplay both the significance and reality of this world, as well as excuse horrific, capricious suffering caused by a "loving" god on the basis that this entire reality isn't as important as a mythical afterlife. That, to me, is downright dangerous.

On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong and I'm risking my eternal soul on an inability to downplay this world for the sake of one I can't see. I'm more than willing to take that bet. I'd rather spend eternity in hell than accept anything from a god who could do this to Job. Even if the story is just a parable, I couldn't accept a god who scares people into worshiping him with such vindictive parables.

Let's do another thought experiment. Imagine that we replace God with a parent in this story. Does it make child abuse any better to suppose that childhood ends, and it's not as important as adulthood?

I don't want to seem insulting. I'm just trying to express my impression. But this kind of thinking appalls me. I find it intellectually revolting; I just can't wrap my head around the fact that others think it's not only fine, but holy.

Avatar wrote: And that's why I repeatedly say that since even christians can't agree on what explanation is real, is it really so surprising that no bunch of christians thinks any non-christian has a flawed view on christianity?

2,000 years on, even the believers haven't decided on what christianity means. All we can go on is how we've experienced it through all kinds of encounters.

And then are told that those encounters don't represent christianity...(which obviously they can't becaus eof the incredible internal differences.

So I like to use the bible as my foundation for considering christianity, as that's fairly, although not entirely, the same across sects. Everybody got the same message...now they're doing what they like with it. Well, me too.

--A

Like I said, it all comes back to what you accept or designate as authority for you. If you use the Bible without reference to an external authority, (which is,uh, a document, subject to interpretation by somebody; there are a multitude of interpretations - which is why you have all of the "disagreement" on Christianity) then YOU, de facto, become the authority.
The thing that makes the MOST traditional churches different - as far as I can tell now, only the Orthodox and Catholic Churches really qualify here - is that the Scripture is something that was collected and canonized by the Church - the people that decided that the Gospel of Mark was kosher and the gospel of Judas was bogus. You are therefore acknowledging that the Church of the 3rd and 4th centuries was competent to do this. if it was competent then, what happened to that Church over time? Where is it now?

The differences are not internal. They are external. The basis of the Church is Apostolic Succession Two churches have serious claims to have maintained Apostolic Succession. Without this there is no lasting verifiable institution, and the concept of the Church becomes meaningless. Other Christians read the Bible and come up with their own interpretations, based on their own experience and knowledge, much as you propose doing. But as you admit, all of that cacaphony cannot be the Truth. As to the ones that really do maintain historical continuity, you will come up against the question, is one really the legitimate successor, and if so, which one?

It certainly explains how you could experience the craziness you have and how Christianity could still be viable as THE Truth.

Still want to get back to your Job post. But the Orthodox way is to ask what the Church teaches about it, rather than rely exclusively on my own understandings of it.

Malik23 wrote:

rusmeister wrote:. . . and another thing worth keeping in mind that if eternity is all that really matters, and the temporal things of worth will be restored in eternity, then their destruction in this life is both inevitable and (by comparison) unimportant.

That's a REALLY big "if." I think everyone here can guess my view on this statement. But let's just imagine for a moment that there is no eternity, there is no afterlife, and that Christians are fooling themselves into believing a myth. (This proposal isn't foolish by any means. After all, there are many different myths of an afterlife, many of which are discounted even by those who believe in a different kind of afterlife than the ones they, too, reject. In the end, there is absolutely no evidence for eternity.)

Ok, we're imagining. Just like John Lennon. There's no heaven. Now, under this perspective, the justification of the Job story can't be viewed in any other way than an inauthentic denial of life. Not only are Christians willing to excuse God's capricious causation of suffering among even those who are righteous and loyal, but Christians are also willing to downplay this intentional causing of suffering by a "loving" God by downplaying the worth of this world and this life. THAT is what I mean by accusing this worldview of life-denying, world-denying.

As far as we know, this life is all we get. Everything else is just a guess. And yet, even though this is all we know, some of you are willing to downplay both the significance and reality of this world, as well as excuse horrific, capricious suffering caused by a "loving" god on the basis that this entire reality isn't as important as a mythical afterlife. That, to me, is downright dangerous.

On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong and I'm risking my eternal soul on an inability to downplay this world for the sake of one I can't see. I'm more than willing to take that bet. I'd rather spend eternity in hell than accept anything from a god who could do this to Job. Even if the story is just a parable, I couldn't accept a god who scares people into worshiping him with such vindictive parables.

Let's do another thought experiment. Imagine that we replace God with a parent in this story. Does it make child abuse any better to suppose that childhood ends, and it's not as important as adulthood?

I don't want to seem insulting. I'm just trying to express my impression. But this kind of thinking appalls me. I find it intellectually revolting; I just can't wrap my head around the fact that others think it's not only fine, but holy.

Malik, I don't want to go in circles with you, so I'll say in short that if Christianity is not true, it ought to be exposed as a fraud.

The thing none of you can offer an answer for is our desire that life go on, that death is ultimately a wrong for our beings, regardless of the justifications offered. In the face of death, all of the justifications turn out to be so much sophistry. So yes, there is beauty in life. But that it will all come to nothing is what is intolerable.

Because I believe Christianity to be the truth, I will refer back to "the Puddleglum Defense" (from CS Lewis Narnia book, "The Silver Chair):

"One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things - trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a playworld which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's a small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say."

I'd rather spend eternity in hell than accept anything from a god who could do this to Job.

This is entirely reasonable. But suppose it was you that had completely misunderstood the significance of what was done to Job, and that, like a child witnessing a surgeon cutting into a body, wrongly assumed harm where the true result was help? Your preference would turn out to be mistaken, which is indeed the case.

Fist and Faith wrote: I've said it before, and I realize the opinion of one of my mindset doesn't much count in this situation, but it seems to me that "Christian" simply means Follower of Christ. All the other qualifiers I've heard (You must believe in the trinity, for example.) seem to me to just be ways for some to give themselves a superior feeling.

As to Christian being "follower of Christ", so far so good. But your assumption of desiring superior feeling is not correct. It is about providing at last a practical definition of the word Christian. Otherwise, you have no definition and anybody can twist things as far as they want. It's like saying that a Chinese couple in China can have a baby in a boat with an American flag flying over it and claim that therefore the child is an American citizen. "Follower" can mean nearly anything at all. The Nicene Creed makes it clear.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:And nicely answered by ali. It's not a choice. I can't decide to believe all these things I don't believe any more than you can decide to not believe them.

You know, I (as an agnostic) felt the same way. I thought of it as being unable to "push a belief button".
But yes you can. It really comes down to choice...

So then you're saying that you woke up one morning, and, for no reason at all, simply decided to believe what you had never believed before? You hadn't always been struggling with certain feelings, and finally decided to try embracing them? Or, nothing in particular made you decide you wanted to believe?

No. But in the face of events in my life that made me realize that my agnostic "believe what you want" philosophy was not enough, I realized that faith really is a choice. Take "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" - when he got to the chasm he had to take a leap of faith. Needs in his life were driving him, but his reason and senses told him that if he jumped, he would fall. Faith in the prophecy told him that he would not. He chose to go with the prophecy rather than his senses. When I came to that point, I called up Fr Victor (Sokolov) in SF and arranged a meeting, because I still had objections (such as confession before a priest). After the meeting I realized that the objections were my own personal invention (in the above case I had been attending men's meetings - something like AA if you will - and had been 'confessing' in front of an entire group every week and I had had no problem with that), and made the choice to believe, and was chrismated the following week.

Hope that clears up what I mean!

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote: I've said it before, and I realize the opinion of one of my mindset doesn't much count in this situation, but it seems to me that "Christian" simply means Follower of Christ. All the other qualifiers I've heard (You must believe in the trinity, for example.) seem to me to just be ways for some to give themselves a superior feeling.

As to Christian being "follower of Christ", so far so good. But your assumption of desiring superior feeling is not correct.

I'm not saying all Christians who define the word as anything other than "follower of Christ" do so in order to feel superior to others. But it must be the case in some cases. Humans have always found cause to feel superior to others, whether it's economic status, skin color, or hair color. And I doubt all people calling themselves Christians, no matter how they define it, have risen above that.

rusmeister wrote:It is about providing at last a practical definition of the word Christian. Otherwise, you have no definition and anybody can twist things as far as they want. It's like saying that a Chinese couple in China can have a baby in a boat with an American flag flying over it and claim that therefore the child is an American citizen. "Follower" can mean nearly anything at all. The Nicene Creed makes it clear.

Heh. Good analogy. I understand the problem. But I only see something like the Nicene Creed causing at least as many problems as it solves. I gotta say, imo, the Bible does not make it nearly clear enough that Jesus was God in the flesh. If it was possible to test such a thing, I'd be willing to bet everything I have that most people who had not ever heard anyone say that Jesus was God incarnate would not get that impression from reading the Bible by themselves. We must be told that's what it means. John 1:1 sure isn't enough. And whoever started the Jehovah's Witnesses didn't think that's what it means, and taught others that. Therefore, thay are not Christians.

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:So then you're saying that you woke up one morning, and, for no reason at all, simply decided to believe what you had never believed before? You hadn't always been struggling with certain feelings, and finally decided to try embracing them? Or, nothing in particular made you decide you wanted to believe?

No. But in the face of events in my life that made me realize that my agnostic "believe what you want" philosophy was not enough, I realized that faith really is a choice. Take "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" - when he got to the chasm he had to take a leap of faith. Needs in his life were driving him, but his reason and senses told him that if he jumped, he would fall. Faith in the prophecy told him that he would not. He chose to go with the prophecy rather than his senses. When I came to that point, I called up Fr Victor (Sokolov) in SF and arranged a meeting, because I still had objections (such as confession before a priest). After the meeting I realized that the objections were my own personal invention (in the above case I had been attending men's meetings - something like AA if you will - and had been 'confessing' in front of an entire group every week and I had had no problem with that), and made the choice to believe, and was chrismated the following week.

Hope that clears up what I mean!

I suspect these kinds of discussions could go on for years without things being cleared up!

I'm not sure you've said other than I said. "When I came to that point..." sounds like you were always struggling with certain feelings, and/or something in particular happened. Possibly both - things built and built over the years, and a straw broke the camel's back. But it doesn't sound like if I woke up one day, and said, "I think I'll believe from now on." I'm not in turmoil over my feelings about these matters. I don't see evidence. I haven't been visited by any sort of angel or anything. I don't feel peer pressure, or removed from my fellow people, and want to be a part of their community. I'm not in the middle of any sort of crisis that often seems to push people in this direction. (And I think I know myself well enough that I'm willing to say I know the death of a child would not make be believe just so I could feel better about the death. Without any evidence, and without any sort of personal experience of God, I would feel I was embracing a myth for peace of mind. The same idea as wanting to be told that my wife is cheating on me, and end what I thought was a perfect relationship and life, rather than remain blissful in ignorance. [No, that didn't happen. I'm just saying. Heh.] I don't work that way. I don't seem to have a choice but to want to live with what I see as the truth.) Who has ever simply decided to give it a go for no reason at all?

rusmeister wrote: Like I said, it all comes back to what you accept or designate as authority for you. If you use the Bible without reference to an external authority, (which is,uh, a document, subject to interpretation by somebody; there are a multitude of interpretations - which is why you have all of the "disagreement" on Christianity) then YOU, de facto, become the authority.
The thing that makes the MOST traditional churches different - as far as I can tell now, only the Orthodox and Catholic Churches really qualify here - is that the Scripture is something that was collected and canonized by the Church - the people that decided that the Gospel of Mark was kosher and the gospel of Judas was bogus. You are therefore acknowledging that the Church of the 3rd and 4th centuries was competent to do this. if it was competent then, what happened to that Church over time? Where is it now?

I'm not saying they were competent to do so. However, since most christian sects base their assumptions about god on those approved texts, I feel able to do so also. (For what its worth, I've also read the "gnostic gospels," the "lost" books of the bible.)

rusmeister wrote:The differences are not internal. They are external. The basis of the Church is Apostolic Succession Two churches have serious claims to have maintained Apostolic Succession. Without this there is no lasting verifiable institution, and the concept of the Church becomes meaningless. Other Christians read the Bible and come up with their own interpretations, based on their own experience and knowledge, much as you propose doing. But as you admit, all of that cacaphony cannot be the Truth. As to the ones that really do maintain historical continuity, you will come up against the question, is one really the legitimate successor, and if so, which one?

It certainly explains how you could experience the craziness you have and how Christianity could still be viable as THE Truth.

Hahaha, but all that cacophony is the truth. At least to the people who believe it. They act and react exactly as though it were true. So to them it is, and it might as well be.

rusmeister wrote:Still want to get back to your Job post. But the Orthodox way is to ask what the Church teaches about it, rather than rely exclusively on my own understandings of it.

Take your time. (But what happens if your understanding of it differs from what the Church teaches? Why is the church more competent than you to interpret it?)

--A

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote: I've said it before, and I realize the opinion of one of my mindset doesn't much count in this situation, but it seems to me that "Christian" simply means Follower of Christ. All the other qualifiers I've heard (You must believe in the trinity, for example.) seem to me to just be ways for some to give themselves a superior feeling.

As to Christian being "follower of Christ", so far so good. But your assumption of desiring superior feeling is not correct.

I'm not saying all Christians who define the word as anything other than "follower of Christ" do so in order to feel superior to others. But it must be the case in some cases. Humans have always found cause to feel superior to others, whether it's economic status, skin color, or hair color. And I doubt all people calling themselves Christians, no matter how they define it, have risen above that.

Of course. But there is no logical link between defining Christianity and human pride.

If we deny a definition then we make the word useless. Saying only 'follower of Christ', simple though it sounds, prevents us from making any meaningful assessment of what Christianity is. At one moment you can condemn it because some people in this corner make it out to be this, the next you can condemn it because people in the opposite corner make it out to be that. On the other hand, if we do have a meaningful definition, we can then proceed to examine its merits and talk about it as something definite, because it has been defined.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:It is about providing at last a practical definition of the word Christian. Otherwise, you have no definition and anybody can twist things as far as they want. It's like saying that a Chinese couple in China can have a baby in a boat with an American flag flying over it and claim that therefore the child is an American citizen. "Follower" can mean nearly anything at all. The Nicene Creed makes it clear.

Heh. Good analogy. I understand the problem. But I only see something like the Nicene Creed causing at least as many problems as it solves. I gotta say, imo, the Bible does not make it nearly clear enough that Jesus was God in the flesh. If it was possible to test such a thing, I'd be willing to bet everything I have that most people who had not ever heard anyone say that Jesus was God incarnate would not get that impression from reading the Bible by themselves. We must be told that's what it means. John 1:1 sure isn't enough. And whoever started the Jehovah's Witnesses didn't think that's what it means, and taught others that. Therefore, thay are not Christians.

Here are sources of doctrine listed at the OCA website:
* Revelation
* Tradition
* Bible
* The Liturgy
* The Councils
* The Fathers
* The Saints
* Canons
* Church Art
Of those, you mentioned only the Bible. (Just making a necessary point that your understanding of Christianity is most probably drawn from Sola Scriptura Protestantism, which is irrelevant to both Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=17
That and the two following pages for a slightly more detailed explanation (not limited to John 1:1) as to why we believe Jesus was God in the flesh. Honestly, if you read the whole thing by (Fr Thomas) Hopko you would get a view of Christianity considerably different from what you have had.
www.oca.org/OCorthfaith.asp?SID=2
I think a big shock for many non-believers is how intelligent and well-educated priests are. We tend to not take their knowledge seriously, as we would if they were psychologists or surgeons or scientists. On actually encountering them we discover (I certainly did!) that they were much deeper than I had imagined.

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:So then you're saying that you woke up one morning, and, for no reason at all, simply decided to believe what you had never believed before? You hadn't always been struggling with certain feelings, and finally decided to try embracing them? Or, nothing in particular made you decide you wanted to believe?

No. But in the face of events in my life that made me realize that my agnostic "believe what you want" philosophy was not enough, I realized that faith really is a choice. Take "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" - when he got to the chasm he had to take a leap of faith. Needs in his life were driving him, but his reason and senses told him that if he jumped, he would fall. Faith in the prophecy told him that he would not. He chose to go with the prophecy rather than his senses. When I came to that point, I called up Fr Victor (Sokolov) in SF and arranged a meeting, because I still had objections (such as confession before a priest). After the meeting I realized that the objections were my own personal invention (in the above case I had been attending men's meetings - something like AA if you will - and had been 'confessing' in front of an entire group every week and I had had no problem with that), and made the choice to believe, and was chrismated the following week.

Hope that clears up what I mean!

I suspect these kinds of discussions could go on for years without things being cleared up!

I'm not sure you've said other than I said. "When I came to that point..." sounds like you were always struggling with certain feelings, and/or something in particular happened. Possibly both - things built and built over the years, and a straw broke the camel's back. But it doesn't sound like if I woke up one day, and said, "I think I'll believe from now on." I'm not in turmoil over my feelings about these matters. I don't see evidence. I haven't been visited by any sort of angel or anything. I don't feel peer pressure, or removed from my fellow people, and want to be a part of their community. I'm not in the middle of any sort of crisis that often seems to push people in this direction. (And I think I know myself well enough that I'm willing to say I know the death of a child would not make be believe just so I could feel better about the death. Without any evidence, and without any sort of personal experience of God, I would feel I was embracing a myth for peace of mind. The same idea as wanting to be told that my wife is cheating on me, and end what I thought was a perfect relationship and life, rather than remain blissful in ignorance. [No, that didn't happen. I'm just saying. Heh.] I don't work that way. I don't seem to have a choice but to want to live with what I see as the truth.) Who has ever simply decided to give it a go for no reason at all?
[/quote]
It is true that crisis tends to be a motivating factor. But seeing it as "something that makes me feel better" is not a fair assessment of what's going on - it assumes untruth in what the seeker finds. If an animal is sick, it looks for herbs to make it feel better - not because the herbs are a figment of its imagination, but because it instinctively knows that it is not healthy and needs something. The same is true for us, but most of us do not know that we are sick. As long as life is going smoothly, frankly, we don't need God. We're fine without Him.

“God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world” CS Lewis, The Problem of Pain

The problem of the modern person considering Christianity is quite unlike the problem facing ancients, or even medievals. They must first become aware of the diagnosis before they can possibly be interested in the cure.
I would say that you are lucky in a sense that you have the opportunity to consider the question outside of crisis. But crisis will come, and at some point what you now see as truth will be put to the test - and it is very difficult to say for certain that you will withstand that test. I have made my choice, but must continue to make it, and I fear that someday my faith will be tested, just as your lack of faith will be tested, and the choice of Abraham (or Indiana Jones) will lie before you.
Lewis underwent his test when his wife died and he wrote a diary in the days and weeks that followed. It's now a short book called "A Grief Observed" www.amazon.com/Grief-Observed-C-S-Lewis ... 428&sr=1-1

May you find God (or He find you) without the need for crises!