> On 6 Sep., 21:03, Santolina chamaecyparissus
juno.com>
> wrote:>> On Sep 6, 1:55 am, gudl...@
yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>> On 5 Sep., 18:19, Santolina chamaecyparissus
juno.com>
>>> wrote:>
>>>> On Sep 4, 10:15 pm, gudl...@
yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>>>> On 5 Sep., 03:56, Kater Moggin wrote:
>
>>>>>> Santolina chamaecyparissus
juno.com>:>
>>>>>>>> Why would they not worship a god they considered to be evil? What
>>>>>>>> other reading is possible when the story explicitly says god is evil?
>>>>>>> Not exactly.
>
>>>>>> Not exactly? Not at all. The story does _not_ explicitly
>>>>>> say God is evil. It explicitly refers to the evil the
>>>>>> Creator brings on the blameless Mr. Job, but the evil of Yahweh
>>>>>> himself is implied, not stated.
>
>>>>> It explicity refers to the evil the Creator brings on the blameless
>>>>> Job, but the evil of Yahweh himself is implied, not stated? An evil
>>>>> person is one who does evil.
>
>>>> The Creator also does good. The doctrine is not mine and I'm not
>>>> saying it makes complete sense, but the text does offer a way out of
>>>> the problem for those inclined to read it that way. In the clumsy
>>>> prologue, for instance, God has Satan do all the dirty work.
>
>>> That really changes nothing.
>
>> It changes things in the minds of most people who adhere to the
>> doctrines. It is the difference between God permitting evil (noun)
>> and God being evil (adjective).
>
> There is no difference. Permitting evil is evil.
>
You should rather say, "to permit evil is to me an evil act." As with
the monomaniacal Moggin, if you would say it this way I might agree
with you, though our personal feelings aren't particulary relevant to
the attempt to understand the text.
>>I personally have never met a
>> religious person who thought that "Job" demonstrated God's evil,
>> rather they interpret it something like what I just said.
>
> I am not surprised, but that does not demonstrate the logic of their
> belief.
>
Who is claiming it is logical (except perhaps internally)? We are
attempting to understand the text and the intentions of its authors.
When you state that the Creator IS EVIL in "Job" you simply have no
basis for your assertion, you're making a statement about your
personal feelings. We might as well state that Jane Austen IS EVIL
because she did not question social norms that nowadays would be
almost universally reviled.
>>Since it is
>> reasonable to assume that the text was composed and edited by like-
>> minded religious individuals,
>
> Why would that be logical?
Would we even HAVE a "Book of Job" if orthodoxy didn't feel that it
comported with their beliefs?
You don't have to tell me that there are difficulties,
inconsistencies, irrationalities with the text, I'm an atheist. But
if "God is evil" is the slam dunk you think it is then "Job" would
have hit the dumpster a long time ago.
> The god of the Bible has changed quite a
> bit through time, so I see no reason to assume that worshippers today
> and then are like-minded.
>
>>and since the vast bulk of "Job" makes
>> little sense if we adopt "God is evil" (why drone on for thirty-some
>> chapters about how it is all so incomprehensible if we get the easy
>> answer in chapter one?), the most reasonable approach, IMO, is that
>> "Job" is a somewhat hamfisted attempt to show that God is to be
>> understood in the traditional way, even though evil exists.
>
> What was the traditional way?
God is the big fat Creator of everything, He is good and just, but
allows evil (which may be for a greater good for all we know), and we
puny mortals can't understand why.
(And yes, I know that this is the point where the Mogginbot let's us
know that we are all idiots and chapters one and two resolve
everything.)
> I know what orthodoxy says today. If,
> for example, a man today claimed that god wanted us to exterminate the
> idol-worshipping people of India, he would be considered by most
> Christians to be insane. Such a man was frequently believed and
> followed by the Hebrews.
>
>>>>>>> The doctrine is that the Creator is apart from the creation.
>
>>>>>> Nope. _Job_ isn't a catechism, and the Creator is clearly
>>>>>> responsible for the evils of the Creation, since he gives
>>>>>> Satan his divine o.k. to impose them. He made the place and he
>>>>>> remains in charge.
>
>>>>> Making him evil, or the word has no meaning beyond might makes right.
>
>>>> He is also responsible for goats, which does not make Him an eater of
>>>> brambles.
>
>>> It does, however, make him resposible for brambles being eaten.
>
>> Of course. The Creator is responsible for everything, good, bad, and
>> indifferent. That's why "Job" exists, trying to make sense of a
>> doctrine that is, I'll be generous, on the boundaries of sensibility.
>
> Yes, I agree. I see the story pointing out that god does evil, and
> there is precious little we can do about it.
>
Well, if it's that simple why don't you and Moggin contact all the
various humanities departments and let them know that the riddle of
"Job" has been solved, there is no such thing as ambiguity and nuance
in the text, and the lot of them can start looking for real jobs.
