Communism was a "necessary evil" that God allowed to happen in the 20th century in order to create opportunities for good after its demise, Pope John Paul says in his new book.
[snip]
"To me it was quite clear that Communism would last much longer than Nazism had done. For how long? It was hard to predict," he writes.
"There was a sense that this evil was in some way necessary for the world and for mankind. It can happen, in fact, that in certain particular human situations, evil is revealed as somehow useful inasmuch as it creates opportunities for good."
--------------------
The whole concept that "this happened for a reason" just bugs me. Millions of people being forced to suffer so others can benefit from it, I'm sorry, I can't get my head around it. I strongly suspect that things just happen, and that good or evil may come of them, but there is no Grand Design behind it.
Then again, this may be related to why the Book of Job is directly responsible to my leaving the Christian faith...
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Chris I think it's distressing, as a Christian myself, to hear that Job caused you to lose faith.
And I certainly would be willing to go into this, but I know my remarks won't be well received on this board...so I'll just say that if you ever want to discuss Job with someone or talk about the issue of why God allows evil in the world and allows suffering, I'll be happy to talk to you via email.
I'm not saying I have the answers - I think no one living has the true "answers" but I'll tell you how I have come to peace over the issues.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Job's story is what reaffirmed by faith... it's my favorite story in the Bible. I think it is beautiful.
-Katarain
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Hmm. I think there is a significant difference between saying God can use human mistakes and even evil for good, or bring good out of evil, and saying that God deliberately caused or allowed evil in order to bring opportunities for good.
So I’m going to disagree with the Pope on this one.
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
If he heard it taught the way I heard it in my honor's "Intellectual Traditions of the West" course, I can see how that would happen. I think the class should have been retitled "Indoctrinations of Secular Naturalism". Any defense of ideas that supported Christianity were promptly discredited, and it was made clear that such ideas were intellectually naive.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
My Honors ITW class wasn't like that at all.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
The Pope is, like, a Marxist.
(re: fundamental economic constructions as necessarily evil stages of advancement)
[ October 07, 2004, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
Communism as a necessary evil. Hmmm. Is the Pope actually agreeing with the Darwinian concept of cultural evolution? It certainly can be argued.
I never read Job before but this thread got me interested in it. I only had time for the first 5 chapters. So...I dunno if I got this right, but does bad stuff happen to us because God likes to gamble with Satan just so He can prove a point? Because, I'd hate to believe God is an impressionable Deity that Satan can coax into performing dispicable acts. If God already made His point with Job, why continue making it throughout history? Maybe I need to finish reading the Book.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Job frustrates me. The concept of God letting bad things happen to people frustrates me even more.
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
You know something.
I hate that the good parts about communism have been confounded with such ideas as totalitarianism and religious intolerance.
Honestly, in my ideal society there would be little difference between how much a doctor makes and how much a car mechanic makes. Both would have every need met, plus a few luxuries. Everyone would choose the career they love, and everyone would have a community job they did once a week.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Good points, Amka... I was thinking that Communism, as a theory, isn't all bad. But Mao, Stalin, Lenin, all of them... What jerks.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I would have to disagree with the Pope on this as well.
There is God actually causing unwarranted harm on people as Evil.
There is God fulfilling promises he made for disobedience which causes harm, which is fulfilment and not "evil".
There is God allowing evil to do it's work in order for Justice to be fair thereby allowing people to choose to do evil acts and be responsible for them and their condemnation, just.
God allows evil to happen so that people literally have the choice to go to heaven or go to hell.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Job is my favorite example of why quoting Bible verses out of context is a bad idea. It’s got a whole series of long speeches by Job’s friends about God, and then, at the end of the story, God shows up and tells them they “haven’t spoken rightly.” But if you don’t read all the way to chapter 42 you don’t know that all of those speeches, some of which sound quite pious and plausible, are against the point the book is trying to make.
And I’ve seen bits from those speeches quoted, used in proof-texting, and even done in cute little needlepoint samplers. ::shakes head::
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Kinda feeling my way around this, as I don't want to offend my friends (or my wife) who are Christian, but here's the general idea.
The church I was raised in (Southern Baptist) believed in strict interpretation of the Bible. If the Bible says something happened, it happened.
The Book of Job tells the story of God and Satan and the trials Job undergoes when God allows Satan to torment him. As a kid I was disturbed by it. God let him pick on that guy, just to prove a point? Why? As a teenager and as an adult, I was finding many more inconsistencies that I couldn't come to terms with. And one of the biggest remained Job.
God told Satan to do what he wanted as long as he didn't touch Job himself. So, in quick succession, Job lost his oxen, asses, servants, sheep, more servants, camels, more servants, and finally all his sons and daughters. Still, he blessed God. So Satan talked God into letting him visit pestilence onto Job himself. No luck. Job's wife counseled him to curse God. His three friends argued with him for chapters. Finally Job loses faith, whereupon God comes down on him hard. Job apologizes, God tells his friends to bring him stuff, he has more sons and daughters (and the daughters are total babes), all is well.
What I learned from this:
The God in Job is childish, petty, cruel, and does not care about his people. The book reads to me like children persecuting a pet and then getting upset because the pet yowled. Because Job gets a new set of kids, that makes the wholesale murder of the first set all right? A good and pious man can be tortured, not to make him a better man, but just to prove a point to someone else?
That's the message I got from the Book of Job. That was not the God I wished to believe in.
Many years later I read an explanation by John Shelby Spong that postulated Job was written as a cautionary tale for the many Jews being persecuted or kept in captivity. "Keep believing," the message was. "No matter what, for you will be rewarded later on." It was a powerful message that, among other things, was designed to keep the Jewish people strong in their faith despite the domination of other cultures and religions. I can believe that.
I can't believe in the God of Job. It's not the only reason I am not a Christian, but it's a strong one.
Belle - thank you. I really appreciate the offer, and who knows? I might take you up on it someday. But just the suggestion helps remind me of the good things in Christianity.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I grew up 7th Day Adventist. And I feel the same way about that part of the bible. It makes little sense to me and seems terribly unfair and is one of the many reasons why I have trouble with Christianity. As is some other reason...
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Dana, I don't think he said God made it happen. I'm pretty sure the Catholic position is that God allows evil and doesn't originate it... that would be Calvinists who believe that.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
You know the only part of Job I actually enjoyed reading was the end where God comes in for the smackdown.
AJ
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:God told Satan to do what he wanted
That conversation never took place. It's a myth.
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
I have a whole lot of trouble with the concept that God "made this bad thing happen to test this person" or miraculously kept one person from getting on a flight where everyone else perished. I beleive God allows free will, and beautiful and terrible things both happen as a result of human free will. If I thought God caused women to get raped so they could practice forgiveness or children to die because their parents had a lesson to learn, well, I would not put my faith in that God.
[ October 07, 2004, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: dread pirate romany ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
A myth that that conversation ever appeared in the book, or that it ever happened?
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
I thought this discussion was on Christian Mythology.
I know, I know, you don't like to think of it as such. But that's how some of us percieve it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You're right, "do what he wanted" was imprecise.
King James Bible, Job Chapter 2:
4 And Satan answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life. 5 But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face. 6 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.
So "do what you want, just don't kill him" would be more accurate.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: "There was a sense that this evil was in some way necessary for the world and for mankind. It can happen, in fact, that in certain particular human situations, evil is revealed as somehow useful inasmuch as it creates opportunities for good."
--------------------
The whole concept that "this happened for a reason" just bugs me. Millions of people being forced to suffer so others can benefit from it, I'm sorry, I can't get my head around it. I strongly suspect that things just happen, and that good or evil may come of them, but there is no Grand Design behind it.
I don't have a problem with what the Pope said because in one sense it's the way humans work. We work by trial and error. We don't really know if something is evil until we've tried it out. Sometimes to learn, we must fall.
BTW, I do reject that everything about communism is or was evil.
Which isn't to say that the way the ideal was often realized was not evil.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
As I understood it, Job was a kind of "wisdom story", not a true to life, prophet-written book in the Bible. I don't know if that's just for LDS or for all Christianity (well, nothing's ever for all Christianity but you get the point). Not that I don't think it gives some good lessons, but if you're really caught up in the conversation between God and Satan, keep that in mind.
[EDIT: I realize "true-to-life" wouldn't describe any story in the Bible for a non-believer, I'm, of course, refering to "true-to-life" for someonee who believes that the Bible is a divinly inspired book. ]
Hobbes
[ October 07, 2004, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
It actually makes sense. Would he have become a pope if it wasn't for communism?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Sorry Jim, I should have been more precise. I disagree with either the belief that God initiates evil, or that God deliberately allows it because it creates an opportunity for a good response. I understand that the pope was suggesting the latter, not the former.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
DKW, can you comment on my Job as not being a true story? Or suspicions there of? All I know is the LDS side, and even that was a while ago and kind of foggy in my memory.
Hobbes Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Hobbes’ Job is not a true story. He is, in fact, an unemployed student. I don’t know why he’s been telling people he has a job, but I expect it’s to impress girls. (Or at least a girl.)
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Note to self: when you mean to type the phrase "speculation on", type it, especially if DKW will ever read it.
[EDIT: Actually, that would aslo be kind of a crap sentance. Perhaps, "My vague remembrance about the Bibilcal story of Job not being a true account, but rather a kind of allegory"]
Hobbes
[ October 07, 2004, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Among non-literalist biblical scholars, there’s pretty general consensus that the book of Job does not describe a historical event. It’s a wisdom tale, an artistically crafted document (the majority of the book is poetry) written to challenge some basic premises and resist easy answers, while ultimately affirming faith in God.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm wondering if there's translation problems. "In some sense necessary" is the part that gives me pause. My understanding is that God permits evil through free will, and works to get some good out of every evil.
Dagonee
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
DKW, Isn't that the whole tale of redemption, though? God allowed a terrible evil in the crucifixion, or even in the fall, in order that tremendous good might be brought from it.
How do you get around "the problem of pain", otherwise without sacrficing Omnipotence or even Omniscience?
And please forgive me if I was presumptive in calling you by your first name... I'm honestly not sure why I did that, but I have a friend who insists I'm belittling her when I do. I intended nothing of the sort.
(and, no, this is not to say that I was at all bothered by your use of mine... it just made me realize I had done it)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
First, you’re welcome to use my first name. I shortened your screen name because whenever I type it out I find myself wanting to type Jim-You and the temptation was becoming irresistible.
I think it comes down to motivation. I certainly believe that God does not prevent all evil, though God could. But I don’t believe that God weighs particular events and says, “okay, I’ll allow these people to suffer because it will create this situation, which is good. Rather, I think, as Dagonee said, that God does not interfere with free will, but then works to bring good out of the situations that we mess up. And btw, I rank the crucifixion up there among the top “situations that we messed up.” If Jesus had come to earth and humanity had embraced his teachings, I think God would have been thrilled and the crucifixion would not have happened. (Granted, I think that God knew that that would not be the case. Does inevitable = necessary?)
[ October 07, 2004, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Oh, and Chris – I have one major dispute with your summation of Job. (Well, a couple, but one really big one.) Nowhere in the book does it say that Job lost faith. In fact, I think that one of the main points of the book is that sometimes getting exceedingly pissed off is a faithful act.
[ October 07, 2004, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Fair enough.
My major problem -- even beyond God acting (IMO) snippy at the end -- was that apparently killing Job's kids, not to mention his servants, was in any way justified in the story, and yet it was delivered to me as an example of why I should Believe.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
As a religious person who believes in the Bible, my own personal take on Job is that he was probably a real person, and much of what is recounted in the Book of Job actually happened to him, but that a frame story was inserted in order to make more of a lesson out of it. That is, although I believe in both God and Lucifer/Satan, I don't believe the conversations between the two of them actually took place, nor that God gave permission to Satan to torment Job, nor even that Satan caused the tragedies that befell him.
I think the point of the story is that bad things happen even to good people, and that there is no easy answer as to why they have to suffer, but that through it all there are appropriate ways to respond to life and to God.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
And if I believed in God, it would be the same response as I would have to an abusive parent.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Chris, I would say that you have been a victim of Bad Sunday School Exegesis.™
Unfortunately, I think BSSE is a force in driving people away from many churches. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Only initially. Ultimately, I have problems with two of the major underlying elements of Christianity. I don't believe in Original Sin of any kind, and I don't believe in the concept of the scapegoat. Both seem to me to be ways of sidestepping personal responsibility at one level or another. Plus there's all those odd little incongruities...
I do believe in mankind's ability-slash-need to impose order on the universe, and I recognize that I could easily be wrong. I'm not agnostic because I can't decide, I'm agnostic because I truly don't know and refuse to choose based on what sounds good.
And, really, is there any reason why God's allowance of the murder of Job's children should be viewed as acceptable or praiseworthy, even as allegory?
I should mention that my leaving was not a fast or an easy decision, but it was a pretty thorough one. I have decided to be as good a secular person as it's possible to be, just to spite any potential Deities or Foes out there.
[ October 07, 2004, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
quote: I'm not agnostic because I can't decide, I'm agnostic because I truly don't know and refuse to choose based on what sounds good.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Your dilemma and solution both sound very familiar to me.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I didn’t mean to imply that I thought it was the sole reason you are agnostic. I still think it’s sad that you were subjected to it, though.
Edit: and I'd still think it was sad even if you were still a Christian. Sloppy Bible interpretation is bad news even when it doesn't drive people away.
[ October 07, 2004, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Chris, if it's not too personal, can you expand on "I don't believe in the concept of the scapegoat." I think I know what you mean by that, but don't want to presume.
Dagonee
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Chris, what do you mean by "Original Sin", anyway? I can think of several churches that would be startled to hear that described as a basic element of Christianity. I'm not so sure about the scapegoat issue, though.
I wouldn't try to persuade you at this late date, but I hope you have carefully thought it all through and considered your options.
[Edit: to Dag--that was an interesting little event...you on one segment and I on the other.]
[ October 07, 2004, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I suspect he's saying that the concept it being necessary for Jesus to die to redeem our sins doesn't make sense to him. That's something I eventually came to struggle with: both the necessity and the sufficiency of it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Bad exit, Jesus????
Okay, there are so many ways that could go...
Anyway, I have only one thing to add, and that is that where matters of faith are concerned, there's never an end. To me, even if Job had ultimately rejected God and all he stood for, it wouldn't be a reason to quit having faith right along with him. What makes Job's story worth knowing is that he kept his faith even when he was encouraged to let it go with quite logical and appealing arguments.
My own personal conclusions is that nobody really knows God's will and all we have is our own abilities and our own faith. For some of us, that means even getting to the point of denying God's existence. (or more typically -- I don't know if God exists, but what you tell me about God doesn't ring true, so I don't think God is what you say God is.)
Some of us get close to that and say "I believe in God, but what you tell me about God doesn't make sense, so I don't believe YOU..." (the negative reaction to organized religion is of this type.)
Then there are those who adopt a particular creed but agree that others might have a similarly good handle on God, but this particular faith "fits" so I'm sticking with it.
Then there are those who truly believe that one particular faith has it all correct, and so they can't imagine that any faith that contradicts theres in any way can possibly be correct.
Then there are the very small minority of people who are in this latter category and can't seem to keep their opinions to themselves and feel like it is their duty to save the poor beknighted savages that the rest of the world must be.
It is only people in this last category who, I think, are a problem in the world. If they are right, they are a problem because they spend so much time alienating others who might otherwise come to that true faith.
On the other hand, the most likely reality is that these folks are just boorish versions of people who hold strongly to a given faith. What others belief is truly none of their business. Unless they decide to make it their business.
Sometimes the Pope gets into this mode, by the way...speaking as if He really is God's representative on Earth, instead of the holy and reveared leader of the Catholic Church.
But usually the pope is content to spread a general message and not attempt to enforce Catholicism's age-old claims of proprietary interest in Christianity.
And the others who are agressive proponents of "my faith or you're going to hell..." They deserve our pity, honestly. They are like Job's friends. Telling him "you must be doing something wrong..." or "curse God" Or "do this and it'll all be okay..." Or whatever.
They mean well, but they are just a pain in the @ss.
And they make it harder for people to have a relationship with God because nobody wants to become "like them!"
Okay, so what has this got to do with God permitting versus causing evil? And the truth of Job?
The truth, for me, is that Job had a sense of God that was between him and God. That was stronger than the hurt and the suffering because it was founded on what Job believed about God. If you know people of strong faith and conviction, you can see this in their lives.
That's why there's a story of Job, because we need examples of people who quietly live their lives keeping true to their faith. They show us what faith means.
I don't believe for an instant that someone recorded this "deal" between God and Satan. That's a layering on the story. The kernel fo the story isn't that. If Job knew about the experiment, he would still have trusted God.
That's the kernel.
As for the idea of a "necessary evei." I think the best one can say is that without being omniscient ourselves, God is pretty inscrutable. If we can't individually figure out God's plan for ourselves (our individualized plan), how can we hope to know what God's plan for world is at any given point in time. Let alone for grand sweeps of history like that covered by the Communist era?
Another point to ponder is whether Communism is truly evil. Maybe the book only talks about Soviet Communism and the aberrations of Stalin??? I haven't read it. But in other implementations of Communism, that whole "religion is the opiate of the masses" stuff wasn't really taken all that seriously. At least not for very long.
Oh well...sorry to ramble. I really just came in here to read dkw's joke to Hobbes.
Don't mind me. Go back to your original discussion...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Icarus -- someday try searching through the text for mention of the blood of the innocent person...blood of sacrifice...blood of the lamb, etc. (note: it helps to have software for this. Search on "Sword Project to download free stuff with search capabilities).
I'm not saying it will begin to make sense, but there is a cultural and religious continuity there that makes the whole symbolism of it "click."
As for the faith aspects of it, I can't help.
[ October 07, 2004, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I've read the Catholic bible in its entirety. I just don't buy that concept anymore.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Pretty much. By all tenets of Christianity, I cannot be considered "Christian" unless I accept Christ as my personal saviour. I don't. I think that I bear the responsibility for my own actions, always and forever. I believe that maturity truly begins when you realize that your actions have consequences and that you bear responsibility for both. The scapegoat system washes that away, tells me I can get into heaven as long as I believe that Jesus took my sins upon himself, and I can't accept that. This is an extremely simplistic answer, by the way, but I could type on this all night.
Original Sin: I don't believe that I (or anyone) was born sinful. I especially don't believe that I should be blamed or need to be saved for something Adam and Eve supposedly did.
I suspect that if the Old Testament had never been taught to me, I might have remained Christian for longer. I can't see how the two Testaments can be reconciled, and the mental gymnastics necessary to explain why what the desert God said in the first half has been replaced by what his gentler son said in the second got to me after a while.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That is exactly the same way I feel, Chris. The concept of Original Sin makes me feel uneasy, plus, it is somewhat unfair for everyone to suffer because of the sins of two people.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Bob - if there had been no planned element in the story of Job, I'd never have questioned it. If he had lost his family, his servants, his holdings in a natural disaster and yet he loved and thanked God anyway, despite it all, I think it would have been a very inspiring story.
As it's written, Job is a better person than God, a good man working for a callous master.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I believe in original sin as a descriptive mechanism, which preserves the idea that the material world is good, even though sin appears to be universal. The primary alternative view, at the time the doctrine was formulated, was a dualism that held that the reason sin is universal is because the material world is inherently evil and our good spirits are trapped in evil bodies. The doctrine of original sin holds that the material world, including humans, are created good. Sin, as something that comes after creation, may be universal, but it isn’t intrinsic. It’s a distinction that I think is important to hold on to.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Fair enough. However, since I don't believe the world was created, that's of purely intellectual interest to me.
My own beliefs are, on the surface, similar: I believe that due to man's evolution we are animals with spirituality stuck over the top, like a veneer. When we allow our baser instincts or desires to control our actions we act "sinfully," if I may borrow the term for a moment. When we can overcome our natural impulses to act in such a way as to benefit ourselves and others, we're truly being "human."
Not quite the same thing, one big difference being that I don't believe anyone will suffer eternal torment if they sin. They'll simply remain animals, albeit possibly animals in nice suits, and that, to me, is just as bad.
[ October 07, 2004, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Good point. I just don't like the all-too-common view of original sin as an STD, so I like to throw out alternative interpretations whenever I get the chance.
Edit: I hope you don’t think I’m in this thread with some thought of “winning you back” to the church or something. I enjoy theological discussion for it’s own sake. If I start to sound missionary-ish, feel free to tell me to knock it off.
[ October 07, 2004, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Not to worry. I wrestled with these questions for years before deciding, and I'm not fool enough to think I know anything for sure.
Along the same lines, if I sound dismissive or condescending towards Christianity, please do the same. While I don't profess belief, I do recognize the awesome power for good that Christianity, I know that most of the people I admire are Christians, and I'm an ethical agnostic who fully realizes that he might be wrong. Just because I don't believe doesn't mean I don't respect those who do.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Original sin isn't my sticking point, because I viewed it in a pretty symbolic way. Neither are creation, or the thought that we need some kind of redemption for our sins. As far as the Old Testament versus the New Testament, since I never was a believer in the literal truth of scripture, I could look at it as a combinatin of graduated revelation, and the divinely inspired authors coloring what they were given with their own worlviews. (Just as I can still get something out of fifty year old books that show elements of racism.)
But while I am familiar with the history of the idea of an innocent sacrificed (sorry for my short reply before, I just need more time to pull my thoughts together), I view that in a symbolic way too. And so the idea that God the Son had to suffer brutally and die to redeem me . . . it just doesn't make sense. And that's the one thing that you have to believe pretty literally to be a Christian at all, right? That Christ is the Son of God and that His suffering and death served the purpose of paying for our transgressions. I don't get it. If God was in a forgiving mood, why couldn't He simply have forgiven us? What is the real need for this mechanism of suffering by proxy?
(um, am I eliminating myself from the wedding party if I am agnostic? )
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Feel free to try to win me back. For the longest time I struggled with this, because I wanted to believe, but in all honesty could not.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Job is a good man.
He would've told you he was a good man because of God.
Remember what his friends said and what he rejected of their pep talks...
Ask yourself...who wrote that part about God's deal with the devil... was someone there? Did God dictate the book? I mean, that's one of those difficult passages that cause more trouble for biblical literalists than for folks who read for the lesson.
Maybe Job felt about God the way you describe -- callous.
But that's not the point of the story. The story is that Job was humble before God because God is God. Everything Job had was God's to do with as God pleased. "God giveth and God taketh away..."
It's an important lesson told well in a compelling story.
There are elements of the story that, I believe, hint at much of it being a legend.
1) The setting for God talking to Satan is a "day when all the sons of God were gathered to present themselves before the Lord" (not quoting any particular version, it's the gist..)
What day is that?
2) Satan and the Lord have a conversation that gets recorded for posterity...by whom?
3) Job is called a man unlike any on Earth. Imagine this as oral tradition -- it's a hero story. Job is unlike anyone who ever lived...on Earth.
I think it's okay to get mad at God here. (I think dkw covered this way better than I ever could). It's sort of the point of the story. If it weren't for that element, this story wouldn't be so powerful.
You have to be in a place where you are angry with God to get the value of this tale. So the people telling the story give you a way to be angry at God.
And still Job's lesson is "who am I compared to God?"
I think we like to think God is our buddy. But maybe the lesson here is that even when God isn't our buddy, we need God.
I don't have a lot of great answers here, of course. I just think the story of Job makes more sense if you look at it with an eye toward why the story would ever be needed. It's there to help grieving people see that it is not a flaw in their behavior. This isn't punishment. The death and destruction isn't always about divine retribution.
And <the people tellikng the story are saying> it's not an excuse to stop believing.
Oh well. I don't think I'm making much sense of this.
Sorry.
[ October 07, 2004, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
No. We knew you were an agnostic, and we both want you there.
It’s funny though, because the atonement stuff is my big wrestling point too. I hate most of the contemporary explanations of it. I did a massive historical study of it in seminary, and I’m planning to go back and eventually write my PhD thesis on it. I think we’re in dire need of some new metaphors. I’m leaning towards medical imagery – blood transfusion, heart transplant type stuff. But I’d also like to write a critique of penal-substitutionary theory from a restorative justice standpoint. So who knows where I’ll end up with it. Should be fun, though. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
oops... I didn't realize you all were having a conversation.
...didn't mean to butt in.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Icarus is such a peach. Posted by Law Maker (Member # 5909) on :
Have you seen that LDS video that tries to explain the necessity for Christ's sacrifice? I thought it did a good job. I'm not sure where you can find a copy, though.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Bob, in all the preaching and teaching I’ve done on Job, I’ve always emphasized the theme that it’s okay to be angry at God, but I never thought of the idea that maybe the author is deliberately giving the reader/hearer a reason to be angry, so that they’re in a place to relate to the story.
That’s two I owe you.
I think I should marry you, just for the sermon help.
[ October 07, 2004, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I have not. What's the thrust of it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:At first we have the central fact made known in the Apostolic preaching, that mankind was fallen and was raised up and redeemed from sin by the blood of Christ. But it remained for the pious speculation of Fathers and theologians to enter into the meaning of this great truth, to inquire into the state of fallen man, and to ask how Christ accomplished His work of Redemption. By whatever names or figures it may be described, that work is the reversal of the Fall, the blotting out of sin, the deliverance from bondage, the reconciliation of mankind with God. And it is brought to pass by the Incarnation, by the life, the sufferings, and the death of the Divine Redeemer. All this may be summed up in the word Atonement. This, is so to say, the starting point. And herein all are indeed at one. But, when it was attempted to give a more precise account of the nature of the Redemption and the manner of its accomplishment, theological speculation took different courses, some of which were suggested by the various names and figures under which this ineffable mystery is adumbrated in Holy Scripture.
Further:
quote:It will be enough to note here the presence of two mistaken tendencies.
# The first is indicated in the above words of Pattison in which the Atonement is specially connected with the thought of the wrath of God. It is true of course that sin incurs the anger of the Just Judge, and that this is averted when the debt due to Divine Justice is paid by satisfaction. But it must not be thought that God is only moved to mercy and reconciled to us as a result of this satisfaction. This false conception of the Reconciliation is expressly rejected by St. Augustine (In Joannem, Tract. cx, section 6). God's merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction.
# The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins.
Basically, these say that salvation was obtained throught the Atonement, that the exact mechanism is unknown, and that there are two common mistakes which root the Atonement in wrath and vicarious punishment.
Here's part of my view on it, and I really hope I say this right. Please take this only as my view, since it is my understanding of teachings, not the teachings themselves. It also owes a lot to Lewis.
Part of the designed state of humanity was to live in communion and obedience to God. There are joys that can only be obtained in obedience. It is possible that the full joy of obedience can only be experienced in experiencing a commandment that is not in and of itself obviously beneficial and good.
A major part of the fall was the turning away from God and disobeying him. God can teach many things, but there was no being that God could submit to in willing obedience. Part of the Incarnation was God experiencing human existence in full, including submission and obedience.
Part of the reason for the suffering on the Cross and during His time in Hell was to submit to God's will in a way that was difficult even for the perfect Man that Christ was. Submission and obedience must be severe for a Being that could, at any time, end the suffering. Once Christ, through the Incarnation and Passion, committed the ultimate act of obedience and suffering, he used that to bridge the gap and reconcile humanity with God.
It was not vicarious punishment or scapegoating, but rather a means for God to demonstrate, in his own Person, what perfect obedience and submission mean.
This is only partial, and I don't know it's right. But to me it presents a strong reason why Christ's suffering was necessary and one way in which the Atonement worked. Of course, I don't beleive God does anything for only one reason, and I don't know how to articulate some of the other reasons I have a glimmer of understanding of.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I’m leaning towards medical imagery – blood transfusion, heart transplant type stuff. But I’d also like to write a critique of penal-substitutionary theory from a restorative justice standpoint.
Dana, do you mean by medical imagery to focus on "corrective" action - helping "repair people"? This is the type of thing I was trying to hint at, although not very well.
Dagonee
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Please take this only as my view, since it is my understanding of teachings, not the teachings themselves.
This statement, and others like it, is why I only argue theology on Hatrack.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Dag, yep.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wow, that sounds like a wonderful project.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
If Jesus atoned, are we still born into original sin?
Wouldn't the act of atonement take care of that, so that only our own individual acts of willful disobedience would be counted against us?
Or does that run into the problem of doing away with the need for Baptism?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Thanks for the link. I will think on it.
Dana, can you expound more on this, or is it too early in the process?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Ic, I could send you my “Suh-aved by the blood of Jesus (who by the way could be pictured as a nursing mother)” sermon.
There’s a reason I don’t publicize my sermon titles. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Dana K. Scopatz, soooooper genius. I like the way that sounds. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I would like that.
(And yes, that's a freaking weird title. o_O )
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Thanks for the link. I will think on it.
If this was directed to me, the purpose of the link was merely to demonstrate (to myself more than anyone else) that the specifics of Atonement are still open and there's still room for thinking of new ways to look at it.
The meat of the post was supposed to be my stuff below the quotes.
Not that the link's not good - I just kind of assumed that was familiar to you, at least in passing.
If that wasn't directed at me, please don't read the above.
Dagonee
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
e-mail's away.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I am familiar with the source, and with the ideas that, by demeaning Himself to take human form, Christ showed us perfect obedience, humility, what have you. But I'd typically heard that in conjunction with some nebulous scapegoating concept as well (though obviously not called that). So I was talking about your ideas at least as much as the link, and wondering if that by itself was justification enough for calling for a real and brutal death (not that you claimed that it was, by itself). And saying I would think on it, not because I've never heard any of these thoughts, but because I'm not going to immediately convert back, nor would I be intellectually honest if I didn't occasionally reevaluate my position in light of the particular thoughts that other people I respect think are relevant. So, um, I was acknowledging what I perceived to be a response to my first (but not only) sticking point.
Is that okay?
Posted by Law Maker (Member # 5909) on :
The video was sort of told in kind of a parable format. I don't really remember exactly how it went. ***The below is my recollection of the video + my own commentary on the matter as I understand it. Nothing that I write should be taken as the absolute doctrine of anyone except myself at this very moment. I admit I could have misunderstood some of the details.***
The gist of it was that God is just and therefore cannot forgive sins on a whim (because he would therefore cease to be just and as a consequence cease to be God because God IS just.) I think in the video, God was represented as a sort of banker.
Along comes man. Man enters mortality wanting to do good and come out of mortality a better person than when he entered it. I think this was represented in the video by this guy signing a contract with the banker and being loaned some money so he could build a farm.
Unfortunately, we all fail to be completely obedient to God's will. We all sin. This breaks our contract with God that we would use his gifts only to better ourselves and make ourselves more Christ-like. In the video, I think the man sometimes neglected his little farm in favor of more diverting activities. As a result, when the loan came due he didn't have enough to repay the banker. The law states that he must spend time in prison for breaking the contract. The man argues for Mercy. The banker argues for Justice.
There can’t be mercy because no justice would ever be served. What good would a law be if when you went before trial the judge simply said, “well, we didn’t really mean all that stuff about there being a penalty for you’re actions”? That would be ludicrous! On the other hand, there can be no justice. How is it fair to punish someone who is truly sorry when they have done all they could on their own to repair the damage of their crime?
This is the real crux of the video because it basically says that there is one way that both Justice and Mercy can be met and that requires an intermediary or a mediator between the two. It would require someone who had enough of what was required to repay the dept (Christ has infinite goodness and He has divinity so it is possible for him to repay the dept). It would require him to have mercy on the man and pay what was required (I believe that Christ is willing to do so for the repentant because basically, he already did.) But this can only happen IF the man would allow him to (he has to accept his dept to Christ which is basically to serve him and keep his commandments). Only in this way could man be saved from his sins. No amount of work or struggle on the part of man could un-break his contract with God. Only the grace of Christ could save him.
This is about where the video ends, but I’ve sometimes wondered about this contract/debt scenario. When did I sign this supposed contract? What debt have I incurred? After thinking about it awhile, what I’ve come up with is this:
I believe in Justice. I believe that in order for there to be a punishment or reward, there must be a law given or else it is just random and unfair and UNJUST. I believe that in order for there to be justice there must ACTUALLY be a reward given for righteous doing and a punishment for wrong doing. It cannot be just a THREAT of punishment, it has to be real . . . even if the person is really sorry, “could you please overlook past mistakes?”, and does everything they can to correct the error on their own.
Everything we have is God’s. He created the materials, led us to the knowledge of how to use them. He created everything. He gave us everything we have, including ourselves. I think that takes care of the debt part of the story. The debt we owe to God is ourselves, perfect, undamaged and in order to repay that debt, we must return ourselves in a better condition than we got ourselves. I think that if the so called “Original Sin” never occurred, we would be able to remain in our original condition but never improve either. Unfortunately, after original sin, humanity has defects. There is mental illness, there is sin, there is death. I believe these are the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of original sin. Just because someone receives forgiveness for something doesn’t remove the natural consequences of the action. But I believe Christ takes (or took) care of these defects through his atonement. It is not Just for us to be punished for the sins of our parents and I don’t believe God can be unjust. Many of us try to fulfill our contract yet fail through our own actions. This is where we have to step in and ask Crist for help. Either we are to pay that debt ourselves (through punishment for a broken contract), or we must accept Christ’s sacrifice.
If you’ve read all of the above, I firmly congratulate you for your endurance. I didn’t really intend for this to turn into a whole thesis or anything it just kind of grew. I hate being preachy so please, if you don’t agree with (or worse yet, are offended by) anything I’ve written, I hope you’ll point it out to me so I can find the flaws in my thinking.
I think I'll go back to lurking now, unless anyone has any questions for me.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Well, I read it, and while I don't know that I agree with it all, it seemed to be well thought out...
and you made sure to say that it worked for you...
That is great, and isn't preachy at all...at least not to me.
As long as you qualify things as such it is intersting...it doesn't become preachy/annoying unless you insist you have all the answers for everyone...or that all my answers are wrong.
Kwea
[ October 08, 2004, 12:20 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
The LDS take on Original Sin is described very sucinctly in Article of Faith #2:
quote:We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
And in fact, we even have a verse which says,
quote:Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.
LDS Theology concerning The Fall (this leads to an in depth Jeff Lindsay FAQ page concerning The Fall, and a discussion of Original Sin)I find to be completely fascinating, and quite different than many others. But, of course, we do have extra-Biblical sources we draw from as well.
[ October 08, 2004, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
quote: Job's story is what reaffirmed by faith... it's my favorite story in the Bible. I think it is beautiful.
Yep. That and David just about the best. And I'm neither Christian nor Jew.
"Bob - if there had been no planned element in the story of Job, I'd never have questioned it."
Chris, you are thinking in far too obvious terms. It was planned alright, but not by a human being, by God. The story of Job isn't a story of a bet between two jerks up in the sky who have nothing better to do than smoke pot and torture people, it's the story of life. And guess what? It's a story! Even if it's not a metaphor, and it's an attempt at explanation of what happened, it neccessarily falls far short of the truth and leaves much unexplained, because humans do not understand the mind of God. "God does not play dice" -Albert Eienstein (Yes I'm aware that quantam mchanics hasn't been replaced by a better theory yet but I assure you it will be as all things in science are.) God does not make bets, God is all powerful God does not need to make bets, God does not need to torture people. Humans need to suffer in order to learn, more than that in order to simply live, otherwise they really are not living, and the lesson learned in Job is that God is always on your side, no matter how it may seem otherwise, because after all there really is no other side, so yeah it's OK sometimes to be angry with God but if you hate God you hate yourself.
"If he had lost his family, his servants, his holdings in a natural disaster and yet he loved and thanked God anyway, despite it all, I think it would have been a very inspiring story."
Yeah see that's exactly what happened. They were all natural causes. And all natural causes come from God, as well as everything else. Humans know that by instinct and we also know that God is totally good and totally infinite therefore the tendency for us to believe that there is an afterlife, because after all something has to happen after we die, we don't just cease to exist, even if we don't go somewhere else, even if our consciousness fades away, we're quite obviously living in the things and people we have left impressions on here on earth. So when you say: "And, really, is there any reason why God's allowance of the murder of Job's children should be viewed as acceptable or praiseworthy, even as allegory?" I don't think you've studied the Christian faith very well, or are ignoring its tenants, as well as the tenants of the vast majority of religions that have ever existed- which generally have a severe tendancy to believe in life after death. Or are you going out and assuming that God took Job's children and servants and chucked them in eternal hellfire? I assure wherever God put them it was in the right place and it was good for their eternal souls, somehow, in the long run, though to explain it to a human could very well be like Calculus to a one-year-old, because God is infinite, God is perfect and God does not make mistakes; that is the definition of God.
Now, About the garden of Eden, the story everybody's been telling you through the course of your life is crap. This is the story and belief of genesis: Men were once like animals, animals(theoretically) who essentially can do no wrong, and though they therefore only do right, they are all the same limited in their true righteousness because they have little(or at least generally far less) choice in what they do and to lesser responsibility must come lesser credit. Man was given the choice of having great inteligence; the choice to choose. He took it-or, as the case may be She took it, and then he took it too because he knew darned well that once she had it there was no way he was going to get laid without it. And so they chose higher inteligence, and they continue to choose, even to this day, some choose to be wolves some, sheep still others, trees, but some choose higher inteligence, and so choose to be humans. And though they be few, and though they err often and much, and though they die and are killed, they are what they are and they know it, and so they truly live, and they continue upward and on.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is that okay?
Of course. I was just explaining my use of the link.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Or are you going out and assuming that God took Job's children and servants and chucked them in eternal hellfire? I assure wherever God put them it was in the right place and it was good for their eternal souls, somehow, in the long run, though to explain it to a human could very well be like Calculus to a one-year-old....
Let me just point out that here you're saying "it's okay that they died and were replaced by a new set, because the afterlife is niftier than life here on Earth, anyway. I can't prove it to you, or even give you any rational reasons, because God's mind is really, really complicated -- so you'll just have to believe me." This is exactly the mystery of faith that, in other conversations, I have pointed out that I find most frightening, because it justifies murder on a mass scale.
In the whole story of Job, I always felt considerably sorrier for his children, who were presumably never given a chance to curse God at all even as their own lives got quite a bit worse -- terminally worse, in fact -- than his own.
[ October 08, 2004, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, since they're asking you to believe several much more basic things than that without proof, such as God's existence, I'm kind of surprised that your hangup is with the lack of proof about one particular attribute of God.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This is exactly the mystery of faith that, in other conversations, I have pointed out that I find most frightening, because it justifies murder on a mass scale.
Except that it doesn't justify murder by humans - it justifies killing by one who fully understands the consequences.
I know people have used faith to justify killing - I'm not claiming otherwise. They haven't used the tenets of faith you've just described, but different ones.
Dagonee
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Let me just point out that here you're saying "it's okay that they died and were replaced by a new set, because the afterlife is niftier than life here on Earth, anyway. I can't prove it to you, or even give you any rational reasons, because God's mind is really, really complicated -- so you'll just have to believe me." This is exactly the mystery of faith that, in other conversations, I have pointed out that I find most frightening, because it justifies murder on a mass scale.
A few points about this:
"so you'll just have to believe me"
Anyone who actually thinks this would, if speaking clearly, insist that you have to believe God, not them. Just a little semantics before we go on.
"I have pointed out that I find most frightening, because it justifies murder on a mass scale"
Of course, if believers are right, it only justifies murder when murder actually is justified. But even more to the point, murder is rarely justified, and I think if you look through the scriptures you (generic you) may find less death than a lot of people are lead to believe is there. All the talk of the wrath of God in the Old Testament, it's almost entirly wrath poured out by God Himself, not given to someone else to take ccare of. So if you don't believe in God, I don't see how anyone could really get upset about the destruction of S&G, or the great flood, no one lifted a finger to kill in these stories, God did it directly, and if God doesn't exist, well then obviously this didn't happen so then there's no problem, and if He does, well He Himself has testified that God Loves his children and always acts for their benefit so we can once again be assured that it wasn't a bad thing, or the total sum of the outcome was positive.
I think what you mean, and this is just my guess here, is that with this faith someone corrupt, someone who claims to get visions, could tell the faithful it was time to go out and slaughter the gentiles, and they would go. I appreciate this fear, it has happened. Of course everyone's favorite example is the crusades, I think that's kind of a bad example since I kind of doubt it was the soldier's faith that motivated them to go out for murder and pillaging, but that's a side point. Heck, I would count Charles Manson and his little vicious gang's killings as being a form of this. So I see and agree with your fear.
My response to it though, is that religion is not The One Ring. It's not necessarily evil, in fact, most of the time, it's a way of keeping a community together, a good way to join to people, to give someone meaning in doing the right thing so that people will sacrifice for the community or for a friend or even for a complete stranger. This is not the only way to get people to do this, I'm not suggesting that anyone without religion can't build communities or act for the greater good, but religion does fill that purpose (and of course, this is assuming unbeleivers, if you're a believer then it's primary function is even more important). Of course someone could twist it, could use it to harm, but you'll notice that 99% of the time people get along, try to follow the precepts they believe in, and for almost all religions these precepts are overall positive.
But after all that, when it comes to the story of Job, I agree with you Tom. Which is why I've always been glad that it's wisdom literature instead of a true story of God's propet or something to that nature, because the killing of the others in the story merely to test Job did seem like it crossed over some lines, big fat red lines with skulls painted on them. When I see it as wisdom literature then I just remember it's a human story, and the best way to interprut it is as the story of Job, not anyone else. Other's deaths are meaningless, the story is enitrley focused on Job, and we can ignore that anyone else's life ended, and just remember that Job's family died. If you see what I mean ...
Hobbes Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Tom has a point, though, and it’s the same point that’s being brought up in the bioethics thread.
Before I try to explain, let me clarify how I’m using some terms. As religious believers, we have some things that we believe are revealed. Scripture is among them, with various interpretations on to what degree the actual words used are part of the revelations. And then we have theology and doctrine, which is our (using “our” in a very broad sense, here) reflection on and interpretation of the revelation. Theology is the “drawing out” of the implications of the revelation into a system of doctrine. Hobbes, I don’t know how the words are used by LDS folks. If you believe that doctrines are directly revealed, then where I use “doctrine” substitute “explanations” or whatever word best gets at the idea.
Now, in the same way that bioethicists should be taking into account the implications of their theories for real people’s lives, people who “do theology,” whether it’s the pope or the LDS prophet explaining and interpreting revelation for their communities, an academic theologian proposing a new metaphor for atonement, or a church member giving a talk on love at a Sunday meeting, should be following through on the implications of their words. And if what you say has implications that you didn’t mean, then maybe you need to find a different way to say it.
The stories of the crucifixion have been read and enacted in ways that inflamed people against Jews. Christian teachings about forgiveness have been used to tell battered women they must stay with their husbands. The book of Job has been used to tell people that if they get mad at God when their children die it means they don't have enough faith. Those are all examples of how sloppy Biblical interpretation has hurt real people, and the preaching and teaching they were getting in their churches is partially (in some cases mostly) responsible.
It is not good enough to say, “Oh, we didn’t mean it that way. If your teaching could reasonably be interpreted in “that way” then you have a responsibility to clarify that teaching. Theology is not theoretical – it has real life consequences, not just for believers but also for everyone they come in contact with.
Hobbes, please don’t take any of this as a criticism. You’re doing good stuff with Job here – keep it up.
[ October 08, 2004, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well to be honest I'm not sure how I could take it as criticism, so I think that means I didn't understand it. What exactly was the message adressed to me (or what I posted)? I think I'm confused.
Hobbes
[ October 08, 2004, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
quote: When I see it as wisdom literature then I just remember it's a human story, and the best way to interprut it is as the story of Job, not anyone else. Other's deaths are meaningless, the story is enitrley focused on Job, and we can ignore that anyone else's life ended, and just remember that Job's family died.
This reads like, "Since I have decided that this doesn't line up with my idea of God, I will pick and choose what is and isn't important."
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Hobbes, you not taking it as criticism means you read it the way I intended. I was just afraid that since I posted right after you, you might think it was aimed at you.
Celia, if you rephrased that as “certain interpretations do not fit with the way I understand God from other sources and from personal experience, and therefore, as other reasonable interpretations are available I will choose them,” then I would agree with your statement.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
am sorry I missed so much of this discussion... loving reading it but way too far behind to add anything meaningful.
Just wanted to say good on everyone and keep it up.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
OK, I think I get it. So I'll go ahead and clarify. When I read Job, I see a story entirley about Job, everyone else in the story existed (with the exception of God) to influence Job in some way, and Job had to keep his faith through all these things. I hope I don't look at the story trying to decide what in the story is worth my attention, as scripture I recognize it as all being worth my attention, but my perspetive on the story is unique (compared to most of the rest of Scripture) due to it being wisdom literature. So when I see the story, the whole story line is Job, people died but it's only important in so much as it pained Job, their deaths are unimportant. Of course if this was a literal story, I would agree with Tom, but it's not, and so I feel no issues with viewing it as simply another thing that went wrong with Job.
That's what I was trying to say, I'm not sure I've suceeded a second time any better than I did the first, but hey, at least now you can read it twice.
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Ohh, OK DKW, thanks, I appreciate it.
Hobbes Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
ok, dkw, i'll agree to that rephrasing.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Here's the thing about that interpretation, Hobbes. It seems perfectly reasonable, but that isn't a measure of the truth of what it was meant to be. See, there are perfectly reasonable, though perhaps not entirely comfortable interpretations of Job as literal history. To someone who accepts a literal interpretation of the Bible, they must accept a literal interpretation of the this text. To someone who accepts a metaphoric interpretation of the Bible, they must accept a metaphoric interpretation of this text. To someone who accepts a mix, they are free to choose what they think did and didn't happen or whatever interpretation of this text they want. The strength in that is that there is wisdom to be found in any story(go ahead and come up with exceptions, the wisdom of those exceptions is that you shouldn't bother reading crap). The weakness is that if it is, in fact, literal truth you're ignoring it in favor of something that makes you feel better. This is a problem I have with a mixed interpretation of the Bible. The essence of what you get out of it is driven more by what you want to get out of it that what truth is. It may serve as comfort to you and for all I know it may be correct. It makes me rather uncomfortable because choosing what is literal and what is figurative is an excellent way of repressing women, homosexuals or any group and justifying just about any action because you can ignore parts of the Bible as metaphore while pursuing actions you justify with other parts of the Bible which are literal.
I think that was a lot of rambling. Maybe I should go to class or something.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Celia,
one could argue that that is why discussions like these are so importnat. Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
of course Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Celia, every reading is an interpretation. Even people who claim to interpret the text literally, or go by “the plain sense” of the words are conditioned in what the “plain sense” is by their history and their interpretive community (the people they read and study with and learn from). And everyone has a sort of personal “cannon within the cannon” that they consider central and that they interpret all other texts in light of. It’s not possible to avoid doing so, it’s only a question of whether you’re aware of it or do it unconsciously.
Personally, I’d rather try to be aware of my interpretive bias, so I can question my assumptions, than pretend it doesn’t exist.
Posted by peter the bookie (Member # 3270) on :
is there any way i can get a dana filter installed on my copy of ie? then she won't have to keep coming along and cleaning up my muddled posts.
Posted by peter the bookie (Member # 3270) on :
huh, and i appear to be peter in this lab instead of celia. i wonder who i am on the third floor?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
dkw I can't help it, my interpretive bias has issues with projectile objects in the cannon.
AJ
(This is a great conversation. Don't stop. I like Bob's take on it where getting us upset with God is what the writer wanted us to do.)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Dang and blast! My spell check needs to start recognizing homonyms. Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
You know, that's why I love Hatrack. Anywhere else I know of in the world, we couldn't have this kind of theological discussion without having plates flying in the all room
[ October 08, 2004, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
suntranafs: Chris, you are thinking in far too obvious terms.
Um, actually I just read the text. Are there special codes in Scriptures to let me know which bits are historical and which bits are just stories? The stuff in Leviticus, was that historical or mythological? What about the cruxificion? If Job was metaphorical (as I sincerely hope it was) why wasn't it presented as such?
Humans need to suffer in order to learn, more than that in order to simply live, otherwise they really are not living...
Remind me to never leave my kids anywhere near you. Thanks.
"If he had lost his family, his servants, his holdings in a natural disaster and yet he loved and thanked God anyway, despite it all, I think it would have been a very inspiring story."
Yeah see that's exactly what happened. They were all natural causes. And all natural causes come from God, as well as everything else.
As presented in the text, they came as a targeted attack from Satan, condoned by God.
I don't think you've studied the Christian faith very well, or are ignoring its tenants, as well as the tenants of the vast majority of religions that have ever existed- which generally have a severe tendancy to believe in life after death.
I appreciate the confidence. There's always the possibility that I studied it from several angles over a period of several years, even continue to study it although I don't believe, and rejected it wholesale anyway.
Or are you going out and assuming that God took Job's children and servants and chucked them in eternal hellfire?
I'm reading that Job's children were killed to prove a point. I make no judgment about their afterlife. I do find it incredibly callous, cruel, and unnecessary. I grant you that I do not know God's will, plan, or state of mind during this. But I do submit that for the purposes of this metaphor, it would have been infinitely more inspiring to me if either a) they died without direct attack, as I said before, or b) there were taken away and Job was allowed to believe they were dead, which would have had the same effect on him for our purposes but would not have sacrificed innocents, or c) we had been told, as part of the "metaphor," enough of God's will in this instance so the slayings wouldn't be an issue. As written, the God of Job is a cruel child.
I assure wherever God put them it was in the right place and it was good for their eternal souls, somehow, in the long run, though to explain it to a human could very well be like Calculus to a one-year-old, because God is infinite, God is perfect and God does not make mistakes; that is the definition of God.
Or he just flushed them and told us they went to heaven. That works with kids, too.
Now, About the garden of Eden, the story everybody's been telling you through the course of your life is crap.
Which one is that? Which faith? How do you know what I've been taught, or what faiths I've studied, or what philosophies I've read? Although I am relieved to know that you possess the One Truth about it. It's a huge load off my mind.
Everyone, sorry to sound so snippy, but in a three page thread that's been very informative and interesting this was the only "you don't know what you're talking about" type of post and it just jumped out at me. Please, carry on. I'll go back and read Bob's and Dana's excellent comments again instead.
[ October 08, 2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Um, actually I just read the text. Are there special codes in Scriptures to let me know which bits are historical and which bits are just stories? The stuff in Leviticus, was that historical or mythological? What about the cruxificion? If Job was metaphorical (as I sincerely hope it was) why wasn't it presented as such?
Chris, Job is in the "Poetry" section of the Bible. Unfortunately the English translations are't as poetic, but I believe the Hebrew is in a distinctly poetic style, giving us hints as to the nature of the story being different from the truly "historical" stuff like I-II Chronicles for example. dkw knows far more about that then I do though. The Poetic books are Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Eclesiasties and Song of Solomon.
AJ
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Now, About the garden of Eden, the story everybody's been telling you through the course of your life is crap
How nice of you to make this blanket statement, sun, when you yourself say you are not Christian or Jewish. Who are you to decide that the stoy I've been told or the one I believe is "crap?"
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Celia, I appreciate that, and I agree with you, a "pick and choose" method is going to give you only want you wanted to find, not any new information (since you would simply ignore the new information). Unfortunatly, I feel that the Bible is niether literally true, due to numerous translations and non-exact replicas (copying down in percisely or incorrectly), but on the other hand, I think that the base, or the orginal Bible is indeed, true as the word of God. I try to use this as my lens, but of course, it is incredibly easy to abuse and turn into a pick and choose method, of everything I don't like becomes "improperly translated" or whatever. I see no real way around that, so I just try and discern what is truth and what isn't, or more to the point, keep myself open to any truth, and assume that what I'm reading is factual until it appears contradictory, and if I have a problem with something in the scriptures, instead of dismissing it, I try to pray about it, to determine for myself the accuracy. It's imperect, I know, but that's the best I can think to do.
However, when we come to a story that was not a literal truth, even when written (the story here obviously being Job) my interpretation becomes much more ... much heavier filtered. Especially when a wisdom literature story refers to a conversation between God and the Devil, being a wisdom story instead of an account from a prophet, such a conversation becomes merly imagined, perhaps inspired, but not true revlation as I measure it. So my lens puts the story of Job into the context of my pre-existing beliefs. This does make the story less powerful in terms of changing my mind about something, but it doesn't make in ineffectual. It's a story that helps remind me that trials and suffering is not a sign that the Lord no longer cares for me, but rather if I keep strong in faith I will be delievered.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
Not that I don't think it gives some good lessons, but if you're really caught up in the conversation between God and Satan, keep that in mind.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
]![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)