Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It depends on whether you are seeking Truth or your own truth...
Ah, capital-T Truth (tm). That elusive beast.
All actual facts are approximations of reality. This does not mean they are not useful approximations, even if they will never yield an immutable capital-T Truth (or capital-F Fact, if you prefer).
Religious dogmas, on the other hand, are approximations of theological speculations and assertions. They are not approximations of reality.
Fundamentalists like to think they have found Truth because it gives a comforting sense of control and mastery over this chaotic, vast thing we call "life" and "the universe". But the best they can actually do is to assert that one random religion or denomination (theirs!) is Correct, True and Factual and that their One True Dogma is settled for all time. When science occasionally contradicts their Correct, True, Factual Dogma, they have a problem on their hands.
Although the irony is, send one of them back to the 1600s with a flashlight and a tablet computer and synthetic fabric clothing and they would be burned at the stake as a sorcerer by their intellectual forebears. They cherry pick from science when they see benefit, and reject the less pragmatic and more abstract departments of science that in any way threatens their Truth.
It depends on whether you are seeking Truth or your own truth...
A hardly enlightening one-liner, but...
It always does; since for being humans, we have only access to our own human thinking, as much as we would like to pretend otherwise and thus fool ourselves off a cliff. When we seek our own truths we can bend almost any thought to fit how we want it to, through faith; however, it would be doubtful that things are the way we wish them to be, so that we must accept the aweful or wonderful truth in somber humility or unexpected joy.
I wonder what sort of truth that Heaven seeks to justify its lusts. Would they believe in possible Superheavens or deny them? Truth or their own Heavenese truth?
Ultimate criticism and independence, and a clear vision of one's alethophobia and atychiphobia, would be the opposite method of truth finding and lie dumping than unquestioning (or even job's questioning yet undenying) loyalty to one's faith.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 12-08-2013 at 03:07 PM..
It always does; since for being humans, we have only access to our own human thinking, as much as we would like to pretend otherwise and thus fool ourselves off a cliff. When we seek our own truths we can bend almost any thought to fit how we want it to, through faith; however, it would be doubtful that things are the way we wish them to be, so that we must accept the aweful or wonderful truth in somber humility or unexpected joy.
I wonder what sort of truth that Heaven seeks to justify its lusts. Would they believe in possible Superheavens or deny them? Truth or their own Heavenese truth?
Ultimate criticism and independence, and a clear vision of one's alethophobia and atychiphobia, would be the opposite method of truth finding and lie dumping than unquestioning (or even job's questioning yet undenying) loyalty to one's faith.
All actual facts are approximations of reality. This does not mean they are not useful approximations, even if they will never yield an immutable capital-T Truth (or capital-F Fact, if you prefer).
Religious dogmas, on the other hand, are approximations of theological speculations and assertions. They are not approximations of reality.
Fundamentalists like to think they have found Truth because it gives a comforting sense of control and mastery over this chaotic, vast thing we call "life" and "the universe". But the best they can actually do is to assert that one random religion or denomination (theirs!) is Correct, True and Factual and that their One True Dogma is settled for all time. When science occasionally contradicts their Correct, True, Factual Dogma, they have a problem on their hands.
Although the irony is, send one of them back to the 1600s with a flashlight and a tablet computer and synthetic fabric clothing and they would be burned at the stake as a sorcerer by their intellectual forebears. They cherry pick from science when they see benefit, and reject the less pragmatic and more abstract departments of science that in any way threatens their Truth.
I'll deliniate the point: Faith gets you to whatever assurances (false or otherwise) you want it to get you; but the cold, hard truth will make itself evident through doubt whether you like it or not.
It (deep thinking and hard-to-grasp concepts) would be confusing for some, but your one-liners sound like no talk at all. Could you elaborate on your criticism and grievences?
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 12-08-2013 at 05:13 PM..
I'll deliniate the point: Faith gets you to whatever assurances (false or otherwise) you want it to get you; but the cold, hard truth will make itself evident through doubt whether you like it or not.
It (deep thinking and hard-to-grasp concepts) would be confusing for some, but your one-liners sound like no talk at all. Could you elaborate on your criticism and grievences?
That's not very helpful. Choose a random one, the one that first pops into your mind. Are you unable to control your wondering mind? Perhaps that might be the reasons for your current trend of substanceless denials.
That's not very helpful. Choose a random one, the one that first pops into your mind. Are you unable to control your wondering mind? Perhaps that might be the reasons for your current trend of substanceless denials.
Either I have Faith in the Scriptures written by men or I have Faith in Science books written by men...It takes Faith to believe either one is being truthful barring empirical evidence...
The first (Paul of Tarsus?)is trying to say that when a person tries to straighten something that has become bent, they risk breaking it. and that when they count their things, they can't count the faulty ones along with the good-enough.
The second (an ancient Egyptian?)almost corrects the first, saying that a skilled person can actually straighten things without breaking them, and with skill do things that those without skill might have thought couldn't be done. And in such a way, lesser things can be skillfully crafted into better things.
The first is about 400 years too early to be Paul. It is Qoheleth - whether that be a name or a title, it is difficult to translate - who is writing, though it is a pseudepigraphical work which claims to be written by one of the great kings that ruled in Jerusalem. The implication is that it is King Solomon, but it is most definitely not - given the language, style and other date markers. It is merely that authors would frequently attribute books in the "Wisdom" genre to a great person known for this wisdom in Israel, and that would be Solomon.
The second is indeed an ancient Egyptian in the Wisdom Tradition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenk893
I've read Job many times. There is something wrong with your heart if you didn't get the message out of the lesson it was teaching. Unshakable faith. So even after God restored everything to Job such as health, wealth, etc., you still complain and accuse God of doing something wrong? You're not worthy of him or anything in his kingdom. I'm glad people like you won't be there.
Luminous has already pointed out the horrors that blind faith can entail, but I want to point out that you seem to have only read the prose framework story (the prologue and the epilogue) and entirely skipped the poetic meat and potatoes of the story. Job does not have "unshakable faith", or he never would have spent most of the book accusing God of gross Divine Injustice! He would have merely accepted it with humble grace, which he most certainly did not. Perhaps you need to "read" it again? You cannot read JUST the framework story....
You are also missing the very important accusation that Job is not faithful simply because of faith - but that he is being bribed by God to be faithful via Retributive Justice. In that case, faith is not needed since the benefits of worshipping God are already enjoyed by Job in this life. He is typical of the perfect worshipper with what he has:
Seven sons and three daughters were born to him [=10].
His property was seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels [=10], five hundred yoke of oxen, five hundred she-asses [=10], and many servants, so that he was the wealthiest of all the Easterners.
(Job 1:2-3, AB Pope)
According to other Wisdom books of the Hebrew Bible, and the book of Deuteronomy, Job is an example of what the good worshipper will received for his efforts. Notice how contrived his property is, as well, with multiples of 10 in each instance - the author is trying to paint a perfect picture.
The Satan brings this state of affairs to the attention of God, and God is willing to put this accusation to the test. And you know what? Job ends up throwing a major hissy fit when he realizes that his efforts have gone to naught.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
Do not answer a fool according to his folly in such a way that you would become a foolish as he, but answer him according to his folly in such a way that he will realize his own foolishness...
That is certainly one way of interpreting it, I suppose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringwielder
Another aspect of Job that leads me to believe it is either a book of complete fiction or that somehow humans have changed in their views of death drastically is with regard to the deaths of Jobs children.
I am related to two different women (who have no blood relationship to each other) who have lost young children in death. Both went on to have more children (3 in each case), which would appear to be a perfect way to happiness and fulfillment according to the book of Job... if you lose something, just get another one to replace it, or in the case of Job, if you lose 10 children due to your integrity, God will replace the ones you lose and they will be better than the first batch by dint of the fact that the females are better looking than the first batch.
Except for the fact that the two women I know have suffered terribly and experienced great mental anguish ever since their child died, which has impacted the whole of the rest of their lives, relationships and the ability to carry on a 'normal' existence. For one of the women, she lost her child and then had twins, but she has become an alcoholic and is unable to care for her other children properly, such has been the effect on her.
Maybe back then they were made of tougher stuff, but to lose 10 unique and beloved children and to find out it was the result of a bet made by God with Satan, would undeniably lead me to reject such a cruel and twisted being, and giving me 10 'better' looking kids would just add insult to the injury!
I am very glad you brought this up, as you are very close to seeing the huge problem with the epilogue (and I think you really DO see the problem)! It is not that people were tougher back then, I think - it really is a shallow end to the book that completely undoes everything that has come before. It is a paradoxical and disappointing end. It is perhaps because of this very ending that the author of the middle section decided to flesh out the folk tale that makes up the framework story (they are not the same authors).
The book begins with the idea of Retributive Justice and an exemplar of this as being Job. If you look above at my reply to allenk, you'll see a quotation from the book that demonstrates this. The Satan, however, in his duties roaming around the earth and inspecting God's subjects to find any rebellion in them - suggests to God that Job is being bribed into being a good worshipper. He is only "faithful" because of the benefits he receives. God decides this matter must be investigated and the entire idea of Retributive Justice is put to the test. At the end of the prologue, it is tellingly said that Job does not sin with his lips. But perhaps in his heart, at least?
In spite of all this Job did not sin with his lips.
(Job 2:10)
It is telling that the author chooses to change his previous pronouncement at the end of chapter 1 ("In all this Job did not sin, nor ascribe blame to God") and omits that Job did not "ascribe blame to God" and that he did not sin "with his lips". Job has reached the breaking point, and this is where the poetic section begins its vicious destruction of the idea of Retributive Justice and the idea that God can be expected to act Justly at all.
At the end of Job's blasphemous accusations against God, and the friends paltry attempts to defend God (much like some posters in this thread who are content to read a theology into the book that isn't there), God finally answers Job from the whirlwind - and we expect some profound Divine Answer to the issue of why the innocent suffer and the question of Retributive Justice. But we don't get it. What we get is an angry God who cowtows Job into submission by challenging Job to take God's place and hold back Chaos, along with other rhetorical questions that grind Job into the ground and remind him that he is just a puny mortal human that was not around when GOD made the world. Job can do nothing. His quest for Justice has received the answer that Might Makes Right and he has no choice but to answer:
"I recant and repent
In dust and ashes."
(Job 42:6)
Do we really believe Job's words here? It is difficult to say, isn't it? What would any of us say to such a deity?
But now - since you're probably wondering what this has to do with the restoration of "replacement" children - we can get to the big problem. The entire poetic dialogue has demolished the idea of Retributive Justice and established that an answer to Theodicy is not possible. But what does the epilogue do? It REINSTATES Retributive Justice by rewarding Job with everything he had before! This is a huge problem...
The children that are replaced.... there is something to what you said about them being tough, but in a different sort of way. The book is placed in the Patriarchal Age - even though it was not written during it - and in the PA the bearing of children was an important way of passing on one's name, property and other things. A woman's only role was to bear children. If she could not do this, then she was shamed. I'm not justifying these practices, by the way - merely pointing them out. In the context of the story, yes the restoration of new children (and even said to be very beautiful children, at that - "better" children) is fulfilling the idea of Patriarchal inheritance, and also the idea of Retributive Justice. On a personal level, however, I think the horror of the situation would have weighed heavily on Job's wife, especially judging from her words in the prologue that Job should just get it over with and die. Every mother who defended this ending, who I have asked how they would react, have become very angry and upset with me - because they can approve of it in a story, but not with themselves. This is very revealing, I think.
Thanks for bringing up this issue, and especially highlighting the huge problem with the framework ending of the book.
Great book, it shows the faith and loyalty by Job even in the midst of suffering,. It shows the pernicious ways of satan by putting God to the test by making Job go through the struggles to show that his faith could be shaken and shown that they weren't.
There is no pernicious "Satan" in the book. There is a character called THE Satan, but this is not the same "Satan" (without the definite article) of later Judaism and Christianity that was the enemy of God. In this book, he is merely another member of the Divine Council that met with God, and all his actions need permission from God. This is not the diabolical "Satan" of later times. Nothing the Satan does in this book is "pernicious" or "evil". He brings up a valid point, and see my previous post concerning the so-called "unshakeable" faith of Job....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
