In Defense of the God's Benevolence towards Job

[Adrift]

You weren't really clear. You didn't say that the progressive revelation showed that natural evil often has no conscious cause. You said that it slowly revealed that Satan, not God, causes it. There sometimes being no actor involved is just as significant than the shift from God/Satan to Satan being the sole culprit.

I see. I think maybe you missed the focus of my 2 cent explanation, but that's okay.

I don't recommend a book. I learned about the Babylonian origins of some OT books in my ancient history courses way back in 95. The links between those cultural views and oral traditions make much more sense to me than the books being a divine revelation, for the reasons I already expressed in my responses to your interpretation.

Oh okay. Just stuff that you remember from your class then. By the way, I wouldn't expect you to believe in divine revelation since you're not a theist.

[whag]

I see. I think maybe you missed the focus of my 2 cent explanation, but that's okay.

Fair enough. I'm still interested in how you think Satan can cause some instances of natural evil, though. How do you differentiate?

Oh okay. Just stuff that you remember from your class then.

Yes, a university education, and also articles I've read since then. Do you think the story originated in the Jewish culture with no Babylonian link?

By the way, I wouldn't expect you to believe in divine revelation since you're not a theist.

Even skeptics can be swayed to a degree by sensical explanations. CS Lewis presumably had an intermediate period. Like i said, the explanation you offered doesn't make sense to me for reasons I explained. Skepticism is often informed by thinking.

[Adrift]

Fair enough. I'm still interested in how you think Satan can cause some instances of natural evil, though. How do you differentiate?

I'm not really interested in discussing the issue with you.

Yes, a university education, and also articles I've read since then. Do you think the story originated in the Jewish culture with no Babylonian link?

Yes, I think it probably originated in the Jewish culture, but I have no problem with an earlier source tradition.

Even skeptics can be swayed to a degree by sensical explanations. CS Lewis presumably had an intermediate period. Like i said, the explanation you offered doesn't make sense to me for reasons I explained. Skepticism is often informed by thinking.

I think it helps if the skeptic is open to being swayed. I'm not convinced you're open minded enough to make it worth the time.

[jordanriver]

I don't believe the 4 noble truths come as close to the babylonian poem Ludlul bel nimeqi in describing why good people suffer. The pre-Hebraic cultures are much more theistic, more closely reflecting the views contained in that geography. Which, of course, totally makes sense.

Are you saying the story originated in the Jewish culture?

oh no, I believe Job predates the Hebrew-Jew Covenants accounts

But the Sumerian account is probably a thousand years before Job.

I have one of Samuel Kramer's books s and typed out the Sufferer's petition , (what Kramer put in his book)




HISTORY BEGINS AT SUMER Samuel Noah Kramer p115-118 1959 paperback SOURCE


Samuel Kramer writes:
"...It then became obvious that here was the first written essay on human suffering and submission, the theme made famous in world literature and religious thought by the Biblical Book of Job. The Sumerian poem in no way compares with the latter in breadth of scope, depth of understanding, and beauty of expression. Its major significance lies in the fact that it represents man's first recorded attempt to deal with the age-old yet very modern problem of human suffering. All the tablets and fragments on which our Sumerian essay is inscribed date back to more than a thousand years before the compilation of the Book of Job.

I am a man, a discerning one, yet who respects me prospers not,
My righteous word has been turned into a lie,
The man of deceit has covered me with the Southwind, I am forced to serve him,
Who respects me not has shamed me before you.


"You have doled out to me suffering ever anew,
I entered the house, heavy is the spirit,
I, the man, went out to the streets, oppressed is the heart,
With me, the valiant, my righteous shepherd has become angry, has looked upon me inimically.

"My herdsman as sought out evil forces against me who am not his enemy,
My companion says not a true word to me,
My friend gives the lie to my righteous word,
The man of deceit has conspired against me,

And you, my god, do not thwart him . . .

"I, the wise, why am I bound to the ignorant youths?
I, the discerning, why am I counted among the ignorant?
Food is all about, yet my food is hunger,
On the day shares were allotted to all, my allotted share
was suffering.

"My god, (I would stand) before you,
Would speak to you, . . ., my word is a groan,
I would tell you about it, would bemoan the bitterness of
my path,


(Would bewail) the confusion of . . . .

"Lo, let not my mother who bore me cease my lament before you.
Let not my sister utter the happy song and chant.
Let her utter tearfully my misfortunes before you,
Let my wife voice mournfully my suffering,
Let the expert singer bemoan my bitter fate.


"My god, the day shines bright over the land, for me the day is black.
The bright day, the good day has . . like the . .
Tears, lament, anguish, and depression are lodged within my,
Suffering overwhelms me like the chosen for nothing but tears,

Evil fate holds me in its hand, carries off my breath of life,
Malignant sickness bathes my body . . . .

"My god, you are my father who begot me, lift up my face,
Like an innocent cow, in pity . . . the groan,
How long will you neglect me, leave me unprotected?
Like an ox, . . . .,,
How long will you leave me unguided?


"They say -- valient sages -- a word righteous and straight-forward:
'Never has a sinless child been born to its mother,
. . . . a sinless youth has not existed from of old,'"


So much for man's prayer and supplication. The "happy ending" reads as follows:

"The man -- his god harkened to his bitter tears and weeping,
The young man -- his lamentation and wailing soothed the heart of his god.
The righteous words, the pure words uttered by him, his god accepted.
The words which the man prayerfully confessed,
Pleased the . . . ., the flesh of his god, and his god withdrew his hand from the evil word,
. . . which oppresses the heart, . . . . he embraces,
The encompassing sickness-demon, which has spread wide its wings, he swept away.

The (disease) which has smitten him like a . . . ., he dissipated,
The evil fate which had been decreed for him in accordance
with his sentence, he turned aside,
He turned the man's suffering into joy,
Set by him the kindly genii as a watch and guardian,
Gave him . . angels with gracious mien,"

[jordanriver]

however, these guys might have been inspired by the Sumerian Sufferer's petition

gloom

[whag]

I think it helps if the skeptic is open to being swayed.

Not buying the wonky interpretation of Job you presented isn't tantamount to close-mindedness. It's called thought.

I'm not convinced you're open minded enough to make it worth the time.

That's original.

[whag]

oh no, I believe Job predates the Hebrew-Jew Covenants accounts

But the Sumerian account is probably a thousand years before Job.

That the Sumerian account antedates Job by a 1,000 years and is the first recorded attempt to answer why bad things happen to good people doesn't disprove its influence on the BOJ. The theme of the stories--bad things happening to good people, which perplexed ancient people who had a karmic mindset--and geography of the ANE and lineage of the Jews suggests the link is sensical.

I concede there's no strong proof of it being a direct antecedent, however, I believe that the geography and similar cultural beliefs of the ANE better explain the BOJ than a specific account based in reality (i.e., Satan and God interacting to bring about the events described in the BOJ).

In fairness, Adrift's concession that the BOJ explains the origin of natural evil prematurely and hence inaccurately is enough for me. My only motive is to show the BOJ's mythic origin and evolution, so that Christians stop interpreting it as literal. Faith shouldn't require burdensome belief. The interaction between Satan and God is too weird to feel obligated to believe.

[whag]

however, these guys might have been inspired by the Sumerian Sufferer's petition

gloom

I'd wager this is from an episode of Hee Haw?

[jordanriver]

I'd wager this is from an episode of Hee Haw?

yup

as I was reading the Sumerian text, that old song just occurred to me

...from a period of life before complications

[jordanriver]

That the Sumerian account antedates Job by a 1,000 years and is the first recorded attempt to answer why bad things happen to good people doesn't disprove its influence on the BOJ. The theme of the stories--bad things happening to good people, which perplexed ancient people who had a karmic mindset--and geography of the ANE and lineage of the Jews suggests the link is sensical.

I concede there's no strong proof of it being a direct antecedent, however, I believe that geography and similar cultural beliefs better explain the BOJ than a specific account based in reality (i.e., Satan and God interacting to bring about the events described in the BOJ).

In fairness, Adrift's concession that BOJ explains the origin of natural evil prematurely and hence inaccurately is enough for me. My only motive is to show the BOJ's mythic origin and evolution, so that Christians stop interpreting it as literal. Faith shouldn't require burdensome belief. The interaction between Satan and God is too weird to feel obligated to believe.

yeah but
(seems like there's always a "yeah but")

there is so much suffering, probably more accounts than anybody has time to consider them all,
...the Buddhists are right, life is suffering

...WHY,, why would one have to make up an account.

[whag]

yeah but
(seems like there's always a "yeah but")

there is so much suffering, probably more accounts than anybody has time to consider them all,
...the Buddhists are right, life is suffering

...WHY,, why would one have to make up an account.

I don't think it's as simple as someone "making up an account." I think human beings are fascinating creatures who've learned to collectively cope in extraordinary ways. If imagining supernatural characters operating behind the scenes to explain why good people experience suffering, I'm not surprised nor do I blame them or judge them.

It's just another chapter in the story of life that reflects the psychological strength of humanity, no different, in essence, than the theologies of isolated tribes in Papua New Guinea or the Clovis people.

[Adrift]

Not buying the wonky interpretation of Job you presented isn't tantamount to close-mindedness. It's called thought.

I didn't ask you to buy the interpretation of Job I espoused. You're the one who replied to me, not the other way around.

That's original.

Must have heard it from someone else then, eh?

[Adrift]

In fairness, Adrift's concession that the BOJ explains the origin of natural evil prematurely and hence inaccurately is enough for me.

You've filled a narrative in your own head if you image that I've made any such concession.

[Strawman]

Enjolras, thanks for the honesty here. Check your PM's not long after I send this reply.

Whag: It's irrelevant that skeptics think Egyptian deities or, more recently, Islamic Allah, "showcase" brutal acts and personalities. They don't believe they're real, and that's what you're not getting.

How in the world can I not get that a skeptic doesn't believe these sorts of things are real? I look at that as common sense. You're calling upon mental gymnastics to escape a simple mistake you made. You typed,

The skeptics you've come across are amateurs if they say the purpose of ANY biblical book is to proclaim God "evil."

Obviously, I had in mind a skeptic's disbelief when I responded with "You were saying the same thing in a different thread. Obviously, many academic skeptical atheists believe many Old Testament accounts; particularly Job, showcases a malevolent God". This has nothing to do with any God's existence; rather, it regards an attribute.

(1) You painted a strawman by saying that I suggested your above quote, which I most definitely did not. I've checked repeatedly. I would like to respectfully warn you about presenting a strawman assessment towards a guy named "strawman". I will catch it immediately and call it out.
(2) The fact that they don't accept the Christian God's existence is irrelevant to my challenge towards skeptic's who see God as malevolent due to Job's afflictions. Luke Muehlhauser, Eddie Tabash, Skeptic's Dictionary, pretty much the entire wolfpack at infidels.org engages in reductio ad absurdum regarding Job.

I told you how mature skeptics interpret these religious stories, which shouldn't be a problem to you.

Can you give a grounds for your charge of waffling as I gave a ground for your demonstrable errors here?

Rather than admit your mistake, you just ignore it. It's an irrelevant mistake that hurt me none at all. And what in the world is the criteria for determining a "mature skeptic"?

[whag]

You've filled a narrative in your own head if you image that I've made any such concession.

You're right. I apologize for inaccurately describing it as a concession.

The BOJ attributed affliction to God and Satan and the subsequent progressive revelation attributed it mostly to Satan and chance.