Kevin's Watch

Hadn't thought of that...

OK. No harm, no foul.

Tjol wrote:

Avatar wrote:

Tjol wrote: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?

I don't understand. ?

--A

Avatar wrote:

Tjol wrote:

Avatar wrote: 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?

I don't understand. ?

--A

You seemed to ask the same kind of question.

No, I mean I don't understand the question.

Are you saying they are all perfect? (They are btw.) Or that they can't all be perfect? Or that just because they're not, doesn't mean that you shouldn't live?

My question was a lot more straightforward. Why make Job suffer to prove a point, if you know your point will be proven?

--A

Avatar wrote:No, I mean I don't understand the question.

Are you saying they are all perfect? (They are btw.) Or that they can't all be perfect? Or that just because they're not, doesn't mean that you shouldn't live?

My question was a lot more straightforward. Why make Job suffer to prove a point, if you know your point will be proven?

--A

If God is responsible for all of our existences, and all of our exitences contain some days that aren't as good as others, do you think we should be given the opportunity to live life, or is it cruel? Even if God knows that we will see ourselves overcoming the bad days, and having better days?

I'm asking the same question is a broad instance that you are asking in an isolated incident.

Is Job the only person in the history of the world to suffer? Is he the only person in the end to profit from his hardships? Is it wrong for any human being to experience any suffering?

If we go through life getting getting good and bad - depending on how well we plan things; random events; and other factors - then I'm fine. Without evil, there's no good. Without bad days, there are no good days. Without illness, we don't take joy in our health.

But if our lives are being controlled, and I have to watch my children die, don't give me new ones and expect my praises.

Tjol wrote:If God is responsible for all of our existences, and all of our exitences contain some days that aren't as good as others, do you think we should be given the opportunity to live life, or is it cruel? Even if God knows that we will see ourselves overcoming the bad days, and having better days?

I think there's a difference between knowing we will overcome adversity, (or won't because lots don't), and forcing that adversity on you for a dubious and essentially unnecessary reason.

--A

Avatar wrote:

Tjol wrote:If God is responsible for all of our existences, and all of our exitences contain some days that aren't as good as others, do you think we should be given the opportunity to live life, or is it cruel? Even if God knows that we will see ourselves overcoming the bad days, and having better days?

I think there's a difference between knowing we will overcome adversity, (or won't because lots don't), and forcing that adversity on you for a dubious and essentially unnecessary reason.

--A

So you don't hold God accountable in general for the bad things that happen in any person's life, but in this specific case, you think God is responsible for what Satan did to Job?

Well, personally speaking, I don't hold God accountable for anything, since I don't think there is a God. However, for the purposes of this discussion, I think it's incumbent on me to act as though he does, otherwise it would be pretty pointless.

So in that light, (positing that god does indeed exist), yes, I do think he was responsible for what Satan did to Job. He gave his permission for Satan to do whatever he wanted to him. That makes him responsible.

But as I said, this is all hypothetical to me anyway. We're proceeding on the assumption not only that he exists, but on the assumption that the contents of the book of Job are indeed an accurate reflection of what happened.

--A

As I've often said, things like this (and killing the firstborn of every home that doesn't have lamb's blood on the doorpost; etc) are not reasons to not believe such a deity exists. But they're reasons I would not follow such a deity if I believed such a deity did exist.

Avatar wrote:Well, personally speaking, I don't hold God accountable for anything, since I don't think there is a God. However, for the purposes of this discussion, I think it's incumbent on me to act as though he does, otherwise it would be pretty pointless.

So in that light, (positing that god does indeed exist), yes, I do think he was responsible for what Satan did to Job. He gave his permission for Satan to do whatever he wanted to him. That makes him responsible.

But as I said, this is all hypothetical to me anyway. We're proceeding on the assumption not only that he exists, but on the assumption that the contents of the book of Job are indeed an accurate reflection of what happened.

--A

Well let me create something of a similar diagram...

Is the government responsible for every murder that it does not prevent? Is the government guilty of murder because they provide an environment in which people can get murdered?

No. But if they tell their hit squad "Go out and murder that person" then they're guilty. Hell, they're guilty even if they just happen to hint that they'd like somebody to disappear.

Did ol' whatsisname...uh...Henry...bear some responsibility for the murder of Thomas Becket?

--A

Avatar wrote:No. But if they tell their hit squad "Go out and murder that person" then they're guilty. Hell, they're guilty even if they just happen to hint that they'd like somebody to disappear.

Did ol' whatsisname...uh...Henry...bear some responsibility for the murder of Thomas Becket?

--A

God neither told Satan to do it, nor did even hint that he wanted it to happen. He said you 'may'. He allowed for a context in which it could happen. Much like original sin, which I don't think makes God responsible for any sin ever committed, unless he's also responsible for every good thing that's ever been done by mankind.

Tjol wrote:

Avatar wrote:No. But if they tell their hit squad "Go out and murder that person" then they're guilty. Hell, they're guilty even if they just happen to hint that they'd like somebody to disappear.

Did ol' whatsisname...uh...Henry...bear some responsibility for the murder of Thomas Becket?

--A

God neither told Satan to do it, nor did even hint that he wanted it to happen. He said you 'may'. He allowed for a context in which it could happen. Much like original sin, which I don't think makes God responsible for any sin ever committed, unless he's also responsible for every good thing that's ever been done by mankind.

So then Job never was favored by God?

The impression I've always had (okay, based mainly on Heinlein's version in "Job: A Comedy of Justice" ) is that God favored Job. When he then told Satan to go ahead and try to corrupt him -- even if he split hairs and said "you may try" -- that implies to me that God took away whatever protections or favor or whatever that he had previously granted Job. So in that sense, if God were protecting the guy beforehand and then pulled his protection so that Satan could try to corrupt him (if Satan chose to do it), then yes, God bears some responsibility for what happened.

And if Job was never favored by God, then what was the bet about?

Tjol wrote:He said you 'may'. He allowed for a context in which it could happen.

Yes. And some of us think this is a horrible thing to do. I have trouble seeing it as less evil than what Satan did to Job.

Yeah, I feel pretty much the same. And if he's all-knowing, then mentioning Job's faith in the first place was a deliberate set-up. *shrug*

--A

aliantha wrote: And if Job was never favored by God, then what was the bet about?

Bet? You must be thinking of a George Burns movie or something.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Tjol wrote:He said you 'may'. He allowed for a context in which it could happen.

Yes. And some of us think this is a horrible thing to do. I have trouble seeing it as less evil than what Satan did to Job.

Well, that's the argument of free-will vs. no-will. Again, back to original sin and the acquisition of the knowledge of evil (and as is often forgotten, the knowledge of good)...

It's also the long running argument of the individual or the environment...

I don't have any trouble seeing what God did as being much less evil than what Satan did. God created access to the knowledge of evil and the knowledge of good. That people choose to do good with it or evil with it is their choice. Likewise, Satan chose to abuse Job. Satan couldn't help himself? Job chose to stay righteous in spite of what he'd suffered. Is God's creation of the context for Job to prove righteous in spite of Satan's cruelty acknowledged here?

I guess first people would have to acknowledge righteousness as an acheivement, or even understand it as an acheivement. But in the narsicistic present that leans so hard on disavowing of right and wrong, I suppose the acheivement of righteousness is hard to grasp. Only one of you is posting with a pretty obvious axe to grind, but even the rest of you, open to some level of discussion, seem only to be seeing the bad of it, in spite of my trying to walk the proverbial horses to water. Hopefully it's been an enjoyable exploration, but from this point it looks to become repetitive. I can only show you a few pictures and find out what you take from them, if you don't want to take anything from them, you don't have to.

Don't worry overly much if we don't all see it the same way you do, Tjol. Everything in life is a Rorschach test, eh? Even if we were all viewing this particular inkblot from the same perspective - that is, with the same thoughts and beliefs - there's bound to be some differences in how we would see it. No two people are exactly alike. But since we're viewing this from extremely different perspectives... Know what I mean?



As far as Job goes...

Tjol wrote:Is God's creation of the context for Job to prove righteous in spite of Satan's cruelty acknowledged here?

I still say a whole lot of people died horrible deaths so that Job could be proven righteous. Servants put to the sword or burned, his children crushed when the house collapsed. Where's the righteousness in all that?

Tjol wrote:I guess first people would have to acknowledge righteousness as an acheivement, or even understand it as an acheivement. But in the narsicistic present that leans so hard on disavowing of right and wrong, I suppose the acheivement of righteousness is hard to grasp.

You may be right. I don't know if there are very many objective rights and wrongs. Most things can be seen in different ways, depending on their context. I know the things I believe are right and wrong. One of them is demonstrated in Job. Murdering a bunch of people in order to test someone's faith is wrong. And allowing the murder of a bunch of people in order to test someone's faith is wrong. And if I thought this God existed, I'd tell him so.

Fist and Faith wrote: You may be right. I don't know if there are very many objective rights and wrongs. Most things can be seen in different ways, depending on their context. I know the things I believe are right and wrong. One of them is demonstrated in Job. Murdering a bunch of people in order to test someone's faith is wrong. And allowing the murder of a bunch of people in order to test someone's faith is wrong. And if I thought this God existed, I'd tell him so.

But... if the people that were murdered or killed in some way were given eternal life in heaven would you feel the same way? Life is transitory and in the context of eternity encomposes a very small amount of time.

It's still murder, SB. Isn't there a commandment against that?

I think that's what's bothering some folks here about this story. Humanity is expressly prohibited from killing each other. Yet God decides to give Satan free rein -- which includes killing people -- in order to prove a point about one guy. So God and Satan clearly play by different rules. Yet we are supposedly made in God's image, right? So it's natural for us to have the urge to kill people sometimes -- and sometimes for no good reason -- yet God may not forgive us for it (remember, this story is taking place before Jesus absolved us all of our sins).

It's the fact that God sets up the rules but feels free to break them himself -- and doesn't have to answer for it. "Well, he's God!" Right -- another of those religious answers that doesn't really answer anything.