The Problem of Natural Evil

[whag]

I hope you find whatever you're looking for, man. I'm glad I've been able to help some.

Thanks! Here's part 1 of an illuminating Frank Schaeffer lecture you might find encouraging:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGtQ...e_gdata_player

It's from 1996 but still relevant.

[Kelp(p)]

Thanks. I'll give it a listen!

[Adrift]

*have

I'll also accept "would've".

[whag]

LPOT was clearly going for the contraction.

[whag]

More relevant because it at least intends to address the problem of natural evil, whereas I don't think Genesis does.

I agree that it intends to address it with an absurd conclusion, discouraging further questioning at the end. That Job is blessed with new children and things at the end gilds the lily, doesn't it?

Erhman's "God's Problem" is a good breakdown of Job and theodicy. Recommended.

[robrecht]

I agree that it intends to address it with an absurd conclusion, discouraging further questioning at the end. That Job is blessed with new children and things at the end gilds the lily, doesn't it?

Erhman's "God's Problem" is a good breakdown of Job and theodicy. Recommended.

The narrative framework, like the tacked on conclusion of Qoheleth, allowed the scriptures to be accepted by a larger group, but the subversive content remains. I think some would say that the narrative frame of the book of Job is intended as a form of irony. I started Ehrman's 'God Problem' book once but was turned off by some over-simplifications in the Introduction so it did not seem worth my time to read the whole thing. Maybe it got better or maybe it was only ever intended for a popular audience.

[whag]

The narrative framework, like the tacked on conclusion of Qoheleth, allowed the scriptures to be accepted by a larger group, but the subversive content remains. I think some would say that the narrative frame of the book of Job is intended as a form of irony. I started Ehrman's 'God Problem' book once but was turned off by some over-simplifications in the Introduction so it did not seem worth my time to read the whole thing. Maybe it got better or maybe it was only ever intended for a popular audience.

It definitely was aimed at a popular audience and did suffer from oversimplification. Ironically, it used oversimplification to argue against the fundamentalist literalist view that Job was a historical character and the subject of a real cosmic wager. In that regard, it served its purpose.

[Kelp(p)]

I agree that it intends to address it with an absurd conclusion, discouraging further questioning at the end. That Job is blessed with new children and things at the end gilds the lily, doesn't it?

And if Job was rewarded with an eternity of bliss for his faithfulness would that make it ok?

[Truthseeker]

In that regard, it served its purpose.

I felt strange after reading that. It seemed like, "That oversimplification furthered Erhman's endeavor to debunk the fundamentalist literalist view that Job was a historical character and the subject of a real cosmic wager." Pulling legs, often?

[robrecht]

I felt strange after reading that. It seemed like, "That oversimplification furthered Erhman's endeavor to debunk the fundamentalist literalist view that Job was a historical character and the subject of a real cosmic wager." Pulling legs, often?

Yeah, I was wondering exactly what whag meant by that as well.

[whag]

Yeah, I was wondering exactly what whag meant by that as well.

Inasmuch as it gave some the courage to question Job as "a historical person," yes, it served its purpose. I believe it was a relief to him, and I imagine some of his readers, to be able to conclude God and Satan don't actually make sport of human beings like that.

[whag]

I felt strange after reading that. It seemed like, "That oversimplification furthered Erhman's endeavor to debunk the fundamentalist literalist view that Job was a historical character and the subject of a real cosmic wager." Pulling legs, often?

No need to feel strange. Conversely, many lightweight apologists oversimplify but serve as a stepping stone to more sophisticated theological investigation, I'm sure you'd concur. Or did you start with Tillich?

[JohnnyP]

Inasmuch as it gave some the courage to question Job as "a historical person," yes, it served its purpose. I believe it was a relief to him, and I imagine some of his readers, to be able to conclude God and Satan don't actually make sport of human beings like that.

Any Christian knows God allows Satan to test all the time:

Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

Satan doesn't need to test unbelievers, they are already his. It's just a process:

Matthew 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

[pancreasman]

Any Christian knows God allows Satan to test all the time:

Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

Satan doesn't need to test unbelievers, they are already his. It's just a process:

Matthew 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

Hmm, I'd be interested in some kind of empirical survey of believers and non believers to see if their life experiences differed in such a way, ie that unbelievers are not 'tested'.

[Gnostic Bishop]

Any Christian knows God allows Satan to test all the time:

Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

Satan doesn't need to test unbelievers, they are already his. It's just a process:

Matthew 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

An all knowing God would already know the result of any test. All has already been written in his plan and no deviation is allowed.

So why do you think God tests at all? It cannot be because he does not know if you have passed or failed.

Regards
DL