God's Test

[pinkocommie]

We can insist on a literal interpretaion, but that would leave us no one but biblical literalist fundamentalists to discuss/debate with. I was hoping for something more intellectually challenging and productive than that. We all know those types are crap for debates anyway; they don't really debate, they just evade questions and reassert the same premises ad nauseum.

I think we should give Logikos a chance to show if he's (

Good stuff elliebean.  I agree that the story in Job is "fictional" (bearing in mind that we're using that word anachronistically) - but, the characters involved do represent real things.  It's not a case of interpreting it "literally" (another anachronistic term that pokes its head up far too often in these kind of discussions) but literarily - approaching Job as a piece of ancient Jewish literature written with a specific purpose.  Hopefully by thinking a bit about the questions I asked we can go some way to understanding what the elements of the story were originally intended to represent.

Logikos

If Job is Jewish lit written with a specific purpose, then who is to say the entire bible isn't Jewish lit written with a specific purpose?  In that case, I personally don't care as much about what the specific purpose might have been, my question becomes - what is the point of revering the bible at all if it's just a story?  And if the bible is just a story, doesn't that pretty much make Christianity just a story as well?

You bring up a lot of interesting questions that people ask when they read Job for the first time. What is God doing making deals with Satan? Why does God just let Satan make Job suffer, and suffer so terribly?

Rather than give you a straight explanation of these questions, I think you might benefit first from thinking a bit about the book of Job as a whole.

Your post seemed to me to be claiming that a straight answer exists, which is why I would like a straight answer.  Or at least admit that there isn't a straight answer.  Just don't allude to there being a straight answer but claim that it's more beneficial to ignore it in favor of what seems like the set up to an apologist explanation.

[Logikos]

If Job is Jewish lit written with a specific purpose, then who is to say the entire bible isn't Jewish lit written with a specific purpose?  In that case, I personally don't care as much about what the specific purpose might have been, my question becomes - what is the point of revering the bible at all if it's just a story?  And if the bible is just a story, doesn't that pretty much make Christianity just a story as well?

...

Your post seemed to me to be claiming that a straight answer exists, which is why I would like a straight answer.  Or at least admit that there isn't a straight answer.  Just don't allude to there being a straight answer but claim that it's more beneficial to ignore it in favor of what seems like the set up to an apologist explanation.

Almost the entire Bible is Jewish literature (only Luke-Acts was most likely written by a Gentile) - but of course there are many different genres of Jewish literature!  There is historical narrative writing, poetry, myth, gospels, letters, apocalyptic writing, Wisdom literature...  

Pretty much all literature is written with a specific purpose.  Often, one of the purposes of books of the Bible is to bear witness to events which actually occurred in history (of course written from a particularly Jewish/Christian perspective).  So there is no dichotomy between the Bible being "just a story" and the Bible being "literally true" - the Bible, like life, is a little more complicated than that (though not really much more).

In my experience, most apparent contradictions and difficulties in the Bible stem from a misunderstanding of the different types of writing in the Bible and the different ways language is used.  I'm not making a grand unverifiable claim that the Bible is free from contradiction or that sometimes Biblical passages are hard to understand over 2000 years from when they were written - far from it.  In fact I think that part of the purpose of the Bible as a whole (if it makes sense to talk of such a diverse collection of books as having a unified purpose, which is a whole other issue!) is that it is a text that is intended to be wrestled with, questioned, argued with and debated - it is a deep and living text that is worth taking the time to get to know.  These are all reasons why I approach questions about the Bible the way I do: not by simply giving away the answers, but asking questions to encourage people to wrestle with the Bible themselves.

If anyone is ever in desperate need of a "straight answer" I am always happy to give it my best shot (just send me a PM or an email!); but I got the sense that Artsu (as a good freethinker) wanted to understand the text for him/herself, not just overcome some superficial difficulty.

Logikos

[Davin]

So understanding the Bible is analogous to understanding code?  That is almost exactly what it is not like.

I know the bible isn't logical. The point was not merely that the bible is like code, but that when someone asks a question and I have an answer to it, then I would be wasting both my and their time by asking them questions instead of answering.

[pinkocommie]

Almost the entire Bible is Jewish literature (only Luke-Acts was most likely written by a Gentile) - but of course there are many different genres of Jewish literature!  There is historical narrative writing, poetry, myth, gospels, letters, apocalyptic writing, Wisdom literature...  

Pretty much all literature is written with a specific purpose.  Often, one of the purposes of books of the Bible is to bear witness to events which actually occurred in history (of course written from a particularly Jewish/Christian perspective).  So there is no dichotomy between the Bible being "just a story" and the Bible being "literally true" - the Bible, like life, is a little more complicated than that (though not really much more).

In my experience, most apparent contradictions and difficulties in the Bible stem from a misunderstanding of the different types of writing in the Bible and the different ways language is used.  I'm not making a grand unverifiable claim that the Bible is free from contradiction or that sometimes Biblical passages are hard to understand over 2000 years from when they were written - far from it.  In fact I think that part of the purpose of the Bible as a whole (if it makes sense to talk of such a diverse collection of books as having a unified purpose, which is a whole other issue!) is that it is a text that is intended to be wrestled with, questioned, argued with and debated - it is a deep and living text that is worth taking the time to get to know.  These are all reasons why I approach questions about the Bible the way I do: not by simply giving away the answers, but asking questions to encourage people to wrestle with the Bible themselves.

If anyone is ever in desperate need of a "straight answer" I am always happy to give it my best shot (just send me a PM or an email!); but I got the sense that Artsu (as a good freethinker) wanted to understand the text for him/herself, not just overcome some superficial difficulty.

Logikos

So...you still aren't going to share your 'straight answer' you initially alluded to?  Now people have to email you to get your straight answer?  Seems suspect to me...

[Logikos]

So understanding the Bible is analogous to understanding code?  That is almost exactly what it is not like.

I know the bible isn't logical. The point was not merely that the bible is like code, but that when someone asks a question and I have an answer to it, then I would be wasting both my and their time by asking them questions instead of answering.

I often find that being shown useful questions to think about and help me figure out the answer for myself is more valuable than just being given the answer.  Artsu's questions are more like asking "how do I solve this problem?" than "what does this string of code mean?"  Isn't it more satisfying to be given the tools to solve a problem than to be shown the solution?

So...you still aren't going to share your 'straight answer' you initially alluded to?  Now people have to email you to get your straight answer?  Seems suspect to me...

I said if you are absolutely desperate for an immediate answer - the "straight answers" will come out quite simply once we've actually understood what Job is about, but you will need a little patience.

[pinkocommie]

Oh, don't be mistaken, I caught all the passive aggressive insults and strawmen in your last post, I just felt it needed to be stripped down once again for the sake of clarity.    But, OK, either we have to message you OR we have to sit through a long drawn out explanation so we can understand the straightforward answer (though...if it requires a long drawn out explanation can it really be considered a straightforward answer?)

By the way, I remember where I saw your name before!  It was from a site that has this awesome little nugget -



http://www.soulcare.org/gsinew_seminars_logikos_thinking.html

I'm not saying you're affiliated, that's just where I've seen your name before.

[elliebean]

Hopefully by thinking a bit about the questions I asked we can go some way to understanding what the elements of the story were originally intended to represent.

To answer those questions confidently with any precision is well beyond my expertise, but I can offer some speculative answers that seem as like to me as any I know of:

* What type of book is Job? (What kind of literature is it?)

I actually had to look up some definitions because the words that immediately come to mind seem to overlap in meaning and the applicability of each term depends somewhat upon one's interpretation of the story. These are some of the terms I might use to describe what type of story I think Job is, with definitions for comparison:
[li]Myth, a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
[li]Folk Tale, 1. a tale or legend originating and traditional among a people or folk, esp. one forming part of the oral tradition of the common people.
2.
any belief or story passed on traditionally, esp. one considered to be false or based on superstition.
[li]Legend, a nonhistorical or unverifiable story handed down by tradition from earlier times and popularly accepted as historical.
[li]Fable, A usually short narrative making an edifying or cautionary point and often employing as characters animals that speak and act like humans.

Legend, fable, myth refer to fictitious stories, usually handed down by tradition (although some fables are modern). Legend, originally denoting a story concerning the life of a saint, is applied to any fictitious story, sometimes involving the supernatural, and usually concerned with a real person, place, or other subject: the legend of the Holy Grail.  A fable is specifically a fictitious story (often with animals or inanimate things as speakers or actors) designed to teach a moral: a fable about industrious bees.  A myth is one of a class of stories, usually concerning gods, semidivine heroes, etc., current since primitive times, the purpose of which is to attempt to explain some belief or natural phenomenon: the Greek myth about Demeter.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legend

* Who was the book originally intended for? (What was the original audience?)

I'd assume the people of the time and place in which it was written were the intended audience, but it could have been aimed more specifically than that, ie. a certain class of people within that culture. etc.

* What is the purpose of the book? Was it just meant to be a puzzling tale about suffering? Does that purpose fit with the original audience?

There are widely varying views on that, and this is where we get to the part I'd like to see discussed in greater depth.

It's been something like ten years since I read the book, so I don't remember all the details or how I came by this conclusion, but my personal take on what we might call 'the moral' of the story is best summed up as, "Shit happens; life goes on".

[Davin]

I often find that being shown useful questions to think about and help me figure out the answer for myself is more valuable than just being given the answer.  Artsu's questions are more like asking "how do I solve this problem?" than "what does this string of code mean?"  Isn't it more satisfying to be given the tools to solve a problem than to be shown the solution?

I already have the tools: logic. What I want to know is your straight answer. Don't assume that I haven't read this shit, and don't assume that I haven't thought about it. Your little dance into the atheist den happens so much it starts getting old. At least put some twist on the common themes. But please, stop doing the same thing as every other theist trying to talk to atheists. Just stop.

[Logikos]

Oh, don't be mistaken, I caught all the passive aggressive insults and strawmen in your last post, I just felt it needed to be stripped down once again for the sake of clarity.   (Whoever created that has a pretty messed up idea of critical thinking...mantras???)

There is a "straight" answer (as in a direct "solution" - if that is the right word - to the surface difficulties raised in the OP) but not a "straightforward" answer (as in simple).

I'm puzzled about "insults" and "strawmen" - it was certainly not my intention for such things to come across, so I apologise if I'm came across that way (the only thing I can think of is the way I use italics and quotation marks which I do rather a lot... )

[Logikos]

I often find that being shown useful questions to think about and help me figure out the answer for myself is more valuable than just being given the answer.  Artsu's questions are more like asking "how do I solve this problem?" than "what does this string of code mean?"  Isn't it more satisfying to be given the tools to solve a problem than to be shown the solution?

I already have the tools: logic. What I want to know is your straight answer. Don't assume that I haven't read this shit, and don't assume that I haven't thought about it. Your little dance into the atheist den happens so much it starts getting old. At least put some twist on the common themes. But please, stop doing the same thing as every other theist trying to talk to atheists. Just stop.

Oh, you never said that you wanted to know the answer.  You just seemed to take issue with the way I responded to Artsu.  Very well.  So, which particular question/diffulty would you like to begin with?

[pinkocommie]

Alas, there is no affiliation! :hmm: )

I'm glad there's no affiliation, that site is CRAZY PANTS.

Replace 'straightforward' with 'straight' in my previous post.  My mistake, but my previous post still stands with the revision.

The strawman is that anyone here is desperate for your straight answer.

And this comment, to me, seemed like a passive aggressive insult:  

...but I got the sense that Artsu (as a good freethinker) wanted to understand...

I could be wrong about that, though, which is what would make it a passive aggressive insult - that fact that you can easily later claim it wasn't meant to be insulting.  So, for the sake of getting along, I apologize for saying you were being passive aggressively insulting.  

[Davin]

Rather than give you a straight explanation of these questions, I think you might benefit first from thinking a bit about the book of Job as a whole. I would be interested in your thoughts about these questions:

OK. So, I made a judgement which led me to the conclusion that it would be beneficial for Artsu to consider the three questions I asked first before getting to the "straight answer".

I often find that being shown useful questions to think about and help me figure out the answer for myself is more valuable than just being given the answer.

It's important that we think about these fundamental questions before we think about interpreting the smaller details - if we don't understand the type of literature, the audience and the purpose, our misunderstanding is bound to skew the way we read the text.

There is a "straight" answer (as in a direct  "solution" - if that is the right word - to the surface difficulties raised in the OP) but not a "straightforward" answer (as in simple).

Oh, you never said that you wanted to know the answer.

Of course, I never wanted until now.

You just seemed to take issue with the way I responded to Artsu.

I still do, because it's the same old shit.

Very well. So, which particular question/diffulty would you like to begin with?

How about: "a straight explanation of these questions[:]"

Hello, I first want to say hello to the community, this being my first post. Although I consider myself a free-thinker, I belong to an Orthodox school and must do a religion class ( I detest this idea).

My problem is the following: Today we "studied" the story of "Iov" a wealthy man who praised God. ( Keep in mind I am going to tell the what it says in my manual; I saw different versions of this) Satan imagined that, that man praised and loved God only because he was rich, so he asked God's permission to take all away from him. He killed his 10 children, he took all he had from him and then he gave him leprosy. After all this, he still praised God and then, after 7 years of agony, God returned everything he had and made him have another 10 children instead of the ones who died.

Now, I understand that this story is shocking and I highlighted the parts that seemed illogical ( why would God make him have another 10 children; are children some sort of objects?) but the point I want to counter is the following: Every bad thing that happens to us, every clue that God is imaginary is just a test, made to differentiate the good believers from the rest. I wanted to argue about this but refrained as I didn't have any well thought statements. How would you respond to this? Thank you for reading my post and excuse any phrasal mistakes, English is not my first language.

Also, please do something different than every other theist.

[Logikos]

* What type of book is Job? (What kind of literature is it?)

I actually had to look up some definitions because the words that immediately come to mind seem to overlap in meaning and the applicability of each term depends somewhat upon one's interpretation of the story. These are some of the terms I might use to describe what type of story I think Job is, with definitions for comparison:
[li]Myth, a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
[li]Folk Tale, 1. a tale or legend originating and traditional among a people or folk, esp. one forming part of the oral tradition of the common people.
2.
any belief or story passed on traditionally, esp. one considered to be false or based on superstition.
[li]Legend, a nonhistorical or unverifiable story handed down by tradition from earlier times and popularly accepted as historical.
[li]Fable, A usually short narrative making an edifying or cautionary point and often employing as characters animals that speak and act like humans.

Legend, fable, myth refer to fictitious stories, usually handed down by tradition (although some fables are modern). Legend, originally denoting a story concerning the life of a saint, is applied to any fictitious story, sometimes involving the supernatural, and usually concerned with a real person, place, or other subject: the legend of the Holy Grail.  A fable is specifically a fictitious story (often with animals or inanimate things as speakers or actors) designed to teach a moral: a fable about industrious bees.  A myth is one of a class of stories, usually concerning gods, semidivine heroes, etc., current since primitive times, the purpose of which is to attempt to explain some belief or natural phenomenon: the Greek myth about Demeter.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legend

Good thoughts, elliebean.  Job certainly is a kind of fictional story, but the definitions of Myth, Folk-tale, Legend and Fable don't really fit.  Job is mostly a poetic dialogue between Job and his three friends about the relationship between his suffering and divine judgement.  This style of writing, with a narrative prologue and epilogue is very typical of Ancient Near Eastern Wisdom Literature (the wiki article isn't especially enlightening but has some helpful comments).  Job wasn't really read for it's story (because the story itself is not particularly unique or interesting) but the ideas that the characters wrestle with.

* Who was the book originally intended for? (What was the original audience?)

I'd assume the people of the time and place in which it was written were the intended audience, but it could have been aimed more specifically than that, ie. a certain class of people within that culture. etc.

Dating the Book of Job is pretty difficult, primarily because it most like went through a number of stages of editing until it was finally deemed complete.  But the very least we can say is that it's audience was only Jews, during time(s) when they were experiencing suffering and persecution (which was pretty much all of the time!).  This simple point that implies that the Jews (collectively, as a people) would identify with Job's individual experience of suffering, I think, is a key hermeneutical key to unlocking the way we should read Job.

* What is the purpose of the book? Was it just meant to be a puzzling tale about suffering? Does that purpose fit with the original audience?

There are widely varying views on that, and this is where we get to the part I'd like to see discussed in greater depth.

It's been something like ten years since I read the book, so I don't remember all the details or how I came by this conclusion, but my personal take on what we might call 'the moral' of the story is best summed up as, "Shit happens; life goes on".

The question in the wiki article is certainly a key one: "Is misfortune always a divine punishment for something?"  Job gives a pretty decisive "no" to this question I think in the dialogue by showing that he is blameless.  So it will come down to our understanding of the bookends of Job to try and understand why God allowed Job to suffer.

I encourage you to give it another read!   You are bound to get a fresh perspective on it.  What I hope you'll find is that "Shit happens" is definitely not the point!

Logikos

[Logikos]

The strawman is that anyone here is desperate for your straight answer.

I don't think I ever claimed anyone was?  [/quote]
Erm, no, that's certainly not meant to be insulting - being a freethinker and wanting to understand are extremely positive in my opinion!

[I get the feeling from this thread that I have some kind of disease that prevents me from expressing what I mean properly!! ]

[Logikos]

Davin, it's pretty clear that we're not going to be able to have a rational discussion with each other.  If you decide that you'd like to start treating me like a human being and stop stereotyping me as a "theist" (an apparently derogatory word meaning "someone who spews out the same old shit") then maybe we can get along.  But, to be honest, I would rather spend my time discussing the questions with Artsu, elliebean and others who are actually interested in showing mutual respect and a desire to learn from eachother than waste my time going back and forth with you.  I'm sure there are plenty of other shit-spewing theists around the place to give you "the answer".