|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
casinopete*
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:31 am Post subject: 161 |
 |
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| My impression of Job after reading it all the way through for the first time (about a year or so ago) was that Job was undergoing some sort of humbling purification process. Like a layer of immense self-righteousness underneath his Godly righteousness needed to be brought to the surface so it could be eradicated. And in the process, it put his friends in their place, too. It was just an impression, but I did think it was plausible. |
Job was righteous at the beginning of the story. We know this because the narrator tells us directly that he was perfect and upright. We also know this because within the story, God directly stated to Satan that Job was a perfect and upright man. The story is not about the improvement of Job.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| I must have a different translation than you. I don't see the word "dare" or any of it's synonyms in my translation. All I see is Satan pointing out that Job's righteousness is due to the blessings God gave him and not for righteousness sake. Why God allows Satan to back up his claim is open to interpretation, and yours apparently is that God and Satan were comparing the size of their dicks |
I'm pretty sure your description here is wrong, no matter what translation you use. First, it is God who brings up the matter of Job, not Satan. Second, God doesn't merely sit back and "allow" Satan to back up his claim, He directly tells him to go ahead and do whatever he wants to Job. Antrax calling it a dare is much more in tune with the contentious tone of the conversation than your aloof God description, although I think Antrax has the "daring" party reversed.
| BraveHat wrote: |
| I would expect an omniscient being to defy my (non-omniscient) expectations (despite the paradoxical nature of that statement). All we know about Job's children is that they were amongst the set of gifts that motivated Job's righteousness. And since God's goal was to let the truth be revealed, they apparently had to be removed from the picture. "Check something out" sounds a little too casual for that price, but "Find out a vital truth" is not casual and may have been worth the price. |
You are sort of naming two reasons as justification for God's behaviour with regard to Job. The first is that He is God and you are not and that's that. I think that is a perfectly valid reason, just a bit unsatisfactory to hear. Your second reason, though, is a very bad one. I do not believe you actually believe that the ends justify the means, and I don't think you could consider any man moral who slaughtered a family just to demonstrate one man's faith. That it may have been for the "greater good" does not make the killings okay.
I think it is very clear that Job is a text added to scripture to take a swing at "Sometimes Bad Things Happen to Good People". It is the original answer to the Problem of Evil argument against the existence of a benevolent God. The specifics may end up describing nuances of righteousness or the moral unquestionability of God or whatever else, but as a whole the meaning seems perfectly clear - Job's "friends" spend thousands of words telling him that he must have done some evil to provoke his bad luck, and it just wasn't so.
Aside:
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Unfortunately, yes. My reaction to what's wrong with that solution is human nature. We don't effectively change our ways through verbal caution alone. |
Jonah found things otherwise with the Ninevites. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 2:58 am Post subject: 162 |
|
|
Bump. Sorry, I never responded to that last post, so I'm just gittin this out the way. Feel free to sigh 
| casinopete wrote: |
| Job was righteous at the beginning of the story. We know this because the narrator tells us directly that he was perfect and upright. We also know this because within the story, God directly stated to Satan that Job was a perfect and upright man. The story is not about the improvement of Job. |
God and the narrator do not say he's perfect and upright, they say he's blameless and upright. The distinction is important, because perfect implies that nothing needs to improve. Just because he can't be faulted for anything, doesn't mean he's perfect. If I walk into a building that's on fire, it may not be my fault, but that doesn't mean I have the ability to figure out how to put it out. Job didn't cause any of the problems in his world, but he's not yet perfect in the Godly sense. It is clear from his ensuing rants that some of his righteousness was motivated by desire for things to go well for him, and not by the desire to worship God.
| casinopete wrote: |
| I'm pretty sure your description here is wrong, no matter what translation you use. First, it is God who brings up the matter of Job, not Satan. |
I never said Satan brought it up. I said Satan wasn't necessarily daring God. That the "dare" was being read into it.
| casinopete wrote: |
Second, God doesn't merely sit back and "allow" Satan to back up his claim, He directly tells him to go ahead and do whatever he wants to Job. Antrax calling it a dare is much more in tune with the contentious tone of the conversation than your aloof God description, although I think Antrax has the "daring" party reversed. |
I think contentiousness is being read into it, too. I saw God as being decisive rather than contentious.
In a nutshell, what we get out of the Bible (and other art) is all about what we bring to it.
| casinopete wrote: |
| You are sort of naming two reasons as justification for God's behaviour with regard to Job. The first is that He is God and you are not and that's that. I think that is a perfectly valid reason, just a bit unsatisfactory to hear. Your second reason, though, is a very bad one. I do not believe you actually believe that the ends justify the means, and I don't think you could consider any man moral who slaughtered a family just to demonstrate one man's faith. That it may have been for the "greater good" does not make the killings okay. |
First off, I wasn't trying to justify God's behavior at all. I was giving my impression of what the story meant, what Job's journey was for. I'm sure I'll interpret it differently on future readings. On your second point, I never implied the killings were "okay". I did imply that in keeping with God's attributes, the killings would have to be necessary, directly or indirectly. I was speculating, and ONLY speculating, on possible necessities, but did not meant to claim any expertise on God's motives.
| casinopete wrote: |
| I think it is very clear that Job is a text added to scripture to take a swing at "Sometimes Bad Things Happen to Good People". It is the original answer to the Problem of Evil argument against the existence of a benevolent God. The specifics may end up describing nuances of righteousness or the moral unquestionability of God or whatever else, but as a whole the meaning seems perfectly clear - Job's "friends" spend thousands of words telling him that he must have done some evil to provoke his bad luck, and it just wasn't so. |
I agree that a major theme of the story was Job's blamelessness, but again, not his perfection. That his righteous friends were god smacked for trying in vain to accuse Job only made them, in my mind, his co-beneficiaries of God's cleansing gift of humility.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
