The Problem of Natural Evil

[Strawman]

That's the problem of thinking this is literal. I don't see how it's meaningful, since Satan continues to disparage and accuse the world without fear, according to your religion.



I thought you'd determined them added because of the stylistic differences. What about the ridiculous premise and interaction, as well? Case in point:

"And 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.

And 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?"

You really believe it's possible that's how the Lord and Satan interacted?

Most scholars agree that the radical differences in style indicate it was spliced together.




Stop arguing as if that's an answer for everything. If it's a tacked-on prologue, then it's a cruel promise is my point.

As for the middle part, you'll have to explain why that must be literally true. I don't see why those characters must be historical to be meaningful. Not all oral tradition must be based on historical characters and events, so you're way off by assuming "it must have happened" in order to be truly meaningful.

You admitted in the thread I started up that it was for Job's benefit which fulfilled God's cause for Job's afflictions. To be fair, here is your statement:

"....no matter how seemingly harsh the wagerly interaction between God and Satan is, the story enforces your belief that it's for Job's benefit"

That would include any actions from God which led to "Job's benefit"; including His dialogue with Satan. I mean, this was the most important link in the causal chain. No matter how ridiculous, foolish, or harsh it seems, without it Job's benefits would not have followed.

[whag]

You admitted in the thread I started up that it was for Job's benefit which fulfilled God's cause for Job's afflictions. To be fair, here is your statement:

"....no matter how seemingly harsh the wagerly interaction between God and Satan is, the story enforces your belief that it's for Job's benefit"

That would include any actions from God which led to "Job's benefit"; including His dialogue with Satan. I mean, this was the most important link in the causal chain. No matter how ridiculous, foolish, or harsh it seems, without it Job's benefits would not have followed.

You mean the benefits of being given more possessions and pretty daughters as payment for suffering? Who would argue the purpose of the authors is anything other than to proclaim God a kind giver here?

[Strawman]

You mean the benefits of being given more possessions and pretty daughters as payment for suffering? Who would argue the purpose of the authors is anything other than to proclaim God a kind giver here?

The question here is not "are the authors proclaiming God as a kind giver". Before reading even the title of the book, we can rationally assume that each author of each book within the Bible pursued their writing with the fact (to them) that God is a kind giver. Throwing that out here seems very irrelevant. The question here is: "Is the author correct; that is, does the book of Job present a God who really is benevolent, wise, and just?"

It seems like you're trying to distance yourself from a contradiction. On one hand, you throw rhetorical jabs at the book of Job clearly indicating that you digress with some information in the account (the beginning of Job). On the other hand, you declare,

"....no matter how seemingly harsh the wagerly interaction between God and Satan is, the story enforces your belief that it's for Job's benefit"

Well, which is it? Does "the story enforce my belief despite the seemingly harsh interaction between God and Satan" or do you have a real challenge towards God's interaction with Satan which ultimately is what led to the enforcement of my belief on this issue? You are saying, "it's harsh, but it was benevolent" and, then, saying "the dialogue between God and Satan (among another thing or two) is too foolish to have been true in any way". But, if the latter, then we surely cannot conclude the former.

[whag]

The question here is not "are the authors proclaiming God as a kind giver". Before reading even the title of the book, we can rationally assume that each author of each book within the Bible pursued their writing with the fact (to them) that God is a kind giver. Throwing that out here seems very irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant if you look at the sloppy way you framed the OP.

The question here is: "Is the author correct; that is, does the book of Job present a God who really is benevolent, wise, and just?"

It's a meaningless question. You've presented an unarguable strawman by framing it thus:

while the majority of skeptics I've come across interpret and use this account to ground the conclusion that God is malevolent

I don't "ground the conclusion that God is malevolent" from the BOJ or any literature. You're asking if a myth that I don't think is based on real people or actual events successfully portrays a God as benevolent, wise, and just. Meaningless.

It seems like you're trying to distance yourself from a contradiction. On one hand, you throw rhetorical jabs at the book of Job clearly indicating that you digress with some information in the account (the beginning of Job). On the other hand, you declare,

You haven't established any contradiction on my part.

Well, which is it? Does "the story enforce my belief despite the seemingly harsh interaction between God and Satan" or do you have a real challenge towards God's interaction with Satan which ultimately is what led to the enforcement of my belief on this issue? You are saying, "it's harsh, but it was benevolent"

No, I'm not saying that. The people who formed the oral tradition clearly believed that, is what I said. The scribes who wrote down the story who later added the prologue and epilogue clearly believed that, is what I said.

and, then, saying "the dialogue between God and Satan (among another thing or two) is too foolish to have been true in any way". But, if the latter, then we surely cannot conclude the former.

False dichotomy. I can conclude a religious text originated in the minds of humans (ex. Genesis 1-6, Job 1 and 42) while also acknowledging authorial intent to portray God's actions as ultimately benevolent despite the seeming harshness of the wager and resulting afflictions. There is no contradiction here.

[NormATive]

I think that Christians miss out on a much deeper understanding of the ancient mind, and their portrayal of G-d (at least the Jewish G-d, not the Christian God) by their ignorance of the Talmud and the traditions and devices of both the Oral method and the use of storytelling and parables to portray deeper truths.

The book of Iyov (Job) is a perfect example.

As is commonly understood and interpreted by Jewish scholars and teachers today, the mythological tale of the servant Iyov further defines the character of G-d as a.) beyond human comprehension: (The Whirlwind), b). in complete control: (Wager with Satan / giving and taking away Job's possessions and family), and as creator: ("Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" - ch 38).

The character of Iyov is meant to illustrate the various ways in which the human mind comprehends, reacts to and responds to the deity.

Viewing the book as a literal story of an event that took place in history just yields silly ideas and irreconcilable dogmas.

NORM

[whag]

I think that Christians miss out on a much deeper understanding of the ancient mind, and their portrayal of G-d (at least the Jewish G-d, not the Christian God) by their ignorance of the Talmud and the traditions and devices of both the Oral method and the use of storytelling and parables to portray deeper truths.

The book of Iyov (Job) is a perfect example.

As is commonly understood and interpreted by Jewish scholars and teachers today, the mythological tale of the servant Iyov further defines the character of G-d as a.) beyond human comprehension: (The Whirlwind), b). in complete control: (Wager with Satan / giving and taking away Job's possessions and family), and as creator: ("Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" - ch 38).

The character of Iyov is meant to illustrate the various ways in which the human mind comprehends, reacts to and responds to the deity.

Viewing the book as a literal story of an event that took place in history just yields silly ideas and irreconcilable dogmas.

NORM

Another tragic example of this is the book of Jonah. The rich meaning of it dissolves once you start launching into a defense of how a whale can swallow a person and spit him onto the shore.

[robrecht]

I think that Christians miss out on a much deeper understanding of the ancient mind, and their portrayal of G-d (at least the Jewish G-d, not the Christian God) by their ignorance of the Talmud and the traditions and devices of both the Oral method and the use of storytelling and parables to portray deeper truths.

The book of Iyov (Job) is a perfect example.

As is commonly understood and interpreted by Jewish scholars and teachers today, the mythological tale of the servant Iyov further defines the character of G-d as a.) beyond human comprehension: (The Whirlwind), b). in complete control: (Wager with Satan / giving and taking away Job's possessions and family), and as creator: ("Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" - ch 38).

The character of Iyov is meant to illustrate the various ways in which the human mind comprehends, reacts to and responds to the deity.

Viewing the book as a literal story of an event that took place in history just yields silly ideas and irreconcilable dogmas.

NORM

Most Christians I know understand the book of Job no differently than this, but I also know some Jews who believe that Job was a historical person and who interpret the story literally, believe the world was created 5767 years ago, and also believe in dybbuks and golems. The distinction you want to make between Jews and Christians on this point is overly contentious and based on a derisive caricature.

[whag]

Most Christians I know understand the book of Job no differently than this, but I also know some Jews who believe that Job was a historical person and who interpret the story literally, believe the world was created 5767 years ago, and also believe in dybbuks and golems. The distinction you want to make between Jews and Christians on this point is overly contentious and based on a derisive caricature.

Even Kelp(p) who's fairly liberal recently stated the story has no meaning if it didn't happen. He recanted when corrected, but still it reflects a deeper problem of interpretation than you acknowledge. Even the owner of this forum believes it to be literal recorded history, if I'm not mistaken. And the previous owner, DeeDee, is an avowed YEC.


That's not derisive but reflects a pervasive belief. Just because the Christians you know have a more sophisticated understanding of Job does not mean the unsophisticated contingent doesn't exist in fairly large numbers.

[robrecht]

Even Kelp(p) who's fairly liberal recently stated the story has no meaning if it didn't happen. He recanted when corrected, but still it reflects a deeper problem of interpretation than you acknowledge. Even the owner of this forum believes it to be literal recorded history, if I'm not mistaken. And the previous owner, DeeDee, is an avowed YEC.

That's not derisive but reflects a pervasive belief. Just because the Christians you know have a more sophisticated understanding of Job does not mean the unsophisticated contingent doesn't exist in fairly large numbers.

Why is it a deeper problem of interpretation than I acknowledge? My point was that it is not a difference based on whether or not the interpreter is Jewish or Christian. Do you disagree with that?

[NormATive]

Most Christians I know understand the book of Job no differently than this

Then, you hang with some pretty darn progressive and liberal Christians! All of my Christian life (over 40 years!), I understood and was taught that this event really happened. It wasn't until I converted to Judaism that I discovered another way of looking at it.

I also know some Jews who believe that Job was a historical person and who interpret the story literally, believe the world was created 5767 years ago, and also believe in dybbuks and golems.

And, as I've previously pointed out; this is true, but is the extreme minority. You keep wanting to define modern Jews as the majority of which are like your fundamentalists, or whacked out on Kabalism. I am part of a community with over 300 members, and NOT ONE is into Kabalism or other mysticism. Well; maybe one or two. There are a couple of families who came here from Israel from the Golan Heights. They tend to be Hasidim.

The distinction you want to make between Jews and Christians on this point is overly contentious and based on a derisive caricature.

On the contrary. The distinction is quite valid. This thread is yet another proof.

NORM

[whag]

Then, you hang with some pretty darn progressive and liberal Christians! All of my Christian life (over 40 years!), I understood and was taught that this event really happened. It wasn't until I converted to Judaism that I discovered another way of looking at it.



And, as I've previously pointed out; this is true, but is the extreme minority. You keep wanting to define modern Jews as the majority of which are like your fundamentalists, or whacked out on Kabalism. I am part of a community with over 300 members, and NOT ONE is into Kabalism or other mysticism. Well; maybe one or two. There are a couple of families who came here from Israel from the Golan Heights. They tend to be Hasidim.



On the contrary. The distinction is quite valid. This thread is yet another proof.

NORM

Even Gallup calculates that 22% of US Christians are pure literalists, which is an extraordinary number given the weight of evidence that the Bible isn't pure recorded history.

[robrecht]

Then, you hang with some pretty darn progressive and liberal Christians!

Just typical college and graduate students for the most part, or normal professionals since I've been out of academia.

All of my Christian life (over 40 years!), I understood and was taught that this event really happened. It wasn't until I converted to Judaism that I discovered another way of looking at it.

You've already told us that you were raised in an extremely conservative, fundamentalist brand of Christianity, correct? How far out of that milieu did you venture?

And, as I've previously pointed out; this is true, but is the extreme minority. You keep wanting to define modern Jews as the majority of which are like your fundamentalists, or whacked out on Kabalism.

You must be, once again, confusing me with someone else. I have never, ever tried to define modern Jews as fundamentalist. Please try to pay better attention.

I am part of a community with over 300 members, and NOT ONE is into Kabalism or other mysticism. Well; maybe one or two. There are a couple of families who came here from Israel from the Golan Heights. They tend to be Hasidim.

On the contrary. The distinction is quite valid. This thread is yet another proof.

NORM

What exactly do you think this thread has proven???

[Adrift]

Then, you hang with some pretty darn progressive and liberal Christians! All of my Christian life (over 40 years!), I understood and was taught that this event really happened. It wasn't until I converted to Judaism that I discovered another way of looking at it.

What sort Christian groups were you associated with? The vast majority of Christians I know would have absolutely no problem agreeing with the exegesis you've proffered. Hell, I was in a Christian cult for the first 17 years of my life, and even they would not deny that the book of Job demonstrates that God's nature is beyond human comprehension, is in complete control, and that he is the creator. This is course 101 stuff.

[Strawman]

There's nothing like typing a lengthy response to have my computer freeze.. joys of antique XP-based machines.. I'll see if I can find motivation to re-type everything again tomorrow, whag. It's 1am here right now.

[Adrift]

There's nothing like typing a lengthy response to have my computer freeze.. joys of antique XP-based machines.. I'll see if I can find motivation to re-type everything again tomorrow, whag. It's 1am here right now.

Lazarus From Recovery is your friend. http://getlazarus.com/download