Job 29-31

[wolfpurplemoon]

Job has decided that he deserves his punishment, and his rather gruesome afflictions, because he may have at some point not been quite nice enough to someone he was superior to.

And this is the best thing I've heard so far in Job: "The words of Job are ended." Does that mean something will actually happen now?

Comments

[bill_sheehan.livejournal.com]

Nope. Now we have what Hollywood refers to as a Continuity Error. Remember the storyline: Satan visits God. God says, Look at my pet Job - he loves me. Satan says, He's only pretending to love you because you put Alpo in his food dish. Kick him to the curb, and he'll turn on you. God says, you're on - go for it.

While Job is licking his wounds, three friends show up: Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. They all tell Job that he must've been a real bad dog for his master to beat him like that. Oddly, Job is not comforted.

Where'd this fourth friend come from?

Anyway, he's going to spend the next five chapters arguing that, though younger, he's wiser than the other three, who are all wrong. Job isn't perfect and needs to repent, and he can't truly repent until he cedes moral authority. There is only one master, and Job isn't him. There needs to be less talk and more servile cringing.

Friend Jaron seems to believe, as do many Christians, that atheists really believe in God, we're just too puffed up with our own pride and sinfulness to admit it. There is an element of truth to this: if the God described in the Bible really existed (and there's not the slightest shred of evidence he does), I would consider it a moral imperative to oppose him as an inhuman - indeed, antihuman - monster.

[jaronsjournal.livejournal.com]

Sorry I haven't been around the last few days, I kinda get burnt out sometimes. Maybe you all would rather I wasn't here, haha.

I have heard a radio personality say he'd "kick God's @$$" if it ever turned out He existed beyond argument. I assume it's because he thinks God did something wrong. The thing is, this radio host has pushed causes on his program before that I find morally wrong, and I think it's obvious those causes aren't good for the good welfare of children. He says he doesn't believe in marriage, at least not the till-death-do-us-part variety. He says people should stay together only until they don't love each other anymore. The question he never answers is whether this is good for the kids in such a situation. I think its been shown that kids NEED parents who stay together, father and mother. He takes other stands as well, the results of which would be disastrous to society as a whole if we all accepted his views.

What I wonder is, do all people who think they are gonna "kick God's rear end" just happen to lead lives and support policies that deserve a major kicking in the rear end themselves? And if they do, what business do they really have saying they are gonna kick God's rear end? I suspect they aren't really concerned that God did anything wrong, they just don't like anyone or anything that says they did anything wrong.

I know you're gonna say that not all atheists support immoral causes that hurt people, but I'll have to tell you, what I see and hear in the world is different than what you say.

[bill_sheehan.livejournal.com]

Hi Jaron,

Sorry, but I don't follow. It seems like you're arguing that people who aren't religious do bad things, therefore either religion is true or it is highly desirable regardless of whether it's true or not.

Good people do good things, bad people do bad things. You could argue that religion makes good people do bad things, like disown their own children if the kid happens to be gay. But in general, I don't see any difference. My state of Massachusetts is one of the least religious and most liberal states in the union, and we've had same-sex marriage for years. We also have the lowest divorce rate in the nation. Virtue and religiosity are not necessarily related.

Atheists aren't a political party or social movement. Atheism is just an answer to the question, "Do you believe in a god or gods?" If the answer is yes, you're a theist, and can be a member of some faith or franchise. If you find the evidence lacking, you're an atheist. That's all there is to it.

[jaronsjournal.livejournal.com]

I've haven't seen a Bible verse that would ask a Christian parent to disown their child for homosexuality. In my opinion, we should be firm as to the sinfulness of homosexual acts, but act with Christian love towards gays like Jesus acted towards the prostitute. He spared her from the punishment of stoning that the law called for, but told her to sin no more.

You seem to talk about homosexuality as if it's been proven to be genetic in nature, something one was born with. You talk as if treating homosexuality as a sin is condemning a person for something he cannot help. I am not convinced any such thing has been proven. As long as it hasn't been proven, I don't think gays have any business bullying people around and intimidating them for opposing parts of the gay agenda (as in the CA Miss America incident.) Are we supposed to believe people are born gay just because that's what gays want us to believe? Or should there be scientific evidence?

False religion, or even Christianity twisted and used in a way that Christ never intended, may cause people do do bad things. But following Christ the way he intended us to follow him will never cause us to do anything bad.

[bill_sheehan.livejournal.com]

Say what? What does this have to do with Job? Or anything? I haven't said anything pro or con about homosexuality - that's your issue, not mine.

You must be having a bad day, or come fresh from an argument with someone else, because you must know your Bible, your own religious traditions, and the society in which you live better than this.

As a guest in someone else's blog, I'm going to stick to the topic at hand. I'll be happy to talk about the following areas of exegesis, Biblical history, and theology:

- The story itself. Where it came from, what it means, who wrote it, traditional interpretations, textual criticism, higher criticism, appreciation of its poetic form, etc.

- The problem the Book of Job addresses: Why do bad things happen to good people? The problem of evil.

- Theodicy and theology. What does Job tell us about the way the ancient Hebrews saw God? Does the Book of Job influence how believers and non-believers think of God today, or is this just an old folk-tale?

Abortion, homosexuality, marital relations (save Job's strained relationship with his nagging wife), and other hot-button issues that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, I leave to another place and time.

[jaronsjournal.livejournal.com]

You are the one who said it could be argued that religion might cause one to disown their child for being gay. I was responding to you. I disagree that a follower of Christ would treat a gay person hatefully, though he/she would be firm about the sinfulness of homosexuality.

I don't think I get off subject unless I'm responding to a subject someone else brought up.

[bill_sheehan.livejournal.com]

You've wandered off the path while chasing a hobbyhorse. Here's the original question again: You seem to be making the point that people who aren't members of your religion do bad things. Are you arguing that therefore your religion is true, or are you arguing that your religion is highly desirable whether true or not?

This is a bit tangential to Job, which is about why bad things happen to good people, but relates to the testimony of his friends. Are good people religious, or does religion make people good?

[bill_sheehan.livejournal.com]

You are too kind. I don't have much of an education, but I did start down the path towards ordination once upon a time, and have done a bit of reading along the way. There are a whole bunch of smarter people than me around here.

[funkybomb.livejournal.com]

Don't put yourself down! You seem plenty educated to me.

[funkybomb.livejournal.com]

Gays aren't the ones bullying; they're the ones being fired for being gay, beaten for being gay, having their families disown and kick them out for being gay, having people with no medical background demonize them as "unhealthy", and yes--being killed for being gay.

You have very strange ideas about what constitutes bullying.

[morgian-le-faye.livejournal.com]

Jaron:

My parents haven't loved each other for fifteen years at least. My dad only stayed with my mother because of the kids. Ours was not a happy household. I wish my parents had divorced years ago. At the age of 13 I was able to see how upset my mom was. At age twenty-two, it's just gotten.

The problem here is your idea of immoral is completely different than mine. You're idea that your deity and your beliefs are the only moral things go against every fiber of my moral being. So no one can ever "win" this argument because we each see things differently. You believe everything is black and white and it's so simple when I believe that there are shades of grey. Many of you arguments about things that are moral I see as immoral and vice versa. That's not to say I support mindless theft and murder, I don't. But I do think it's immoral for two people who don't love each other any more to stay together for "the sake of their kids." The kids can see their parents don't love each other no matter how much the parents try to mask it. Kids are not stupid.

[jaronsjournal.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't know your exact situation, so I can't really give a perfect answer. But what made your parents so unhappy? Perhaps one or both was living in a fashion unpleasing to God? Wouldn't solving that problem be better than divorce? Surely finding a way to live happy would be preferable to divorce?

It's hard for me to judge when I don't know what's going on, but in my opinion God can heal any marriage, if the people involved truly desire to do it.

I do often see things in black and white, because I feel that often seeing things as gray means refraining from calling wrong what it truly is. There's too much pain that comes to the world when people don't own up to what is wrong, and try to rationalize sin.

I don't see marriage as something you commit to and then give up as soon as you stop feeling whatever warm fuzzy feelings you felt when you first got married. Surely love is more than a warm fuzzy feeling. Surely there is a certain responsibility and certain self-sacrifice that the love that pushes one to get married is supposed to involve.

[voodooskeleton.livejournal.com]

Every time I read your comments, I become more and more surprised that you can think these things are okay to say to someone.

[funkybomb.livejournal.com]

It most certainly is not hard for you to judge when you don't know what's going on--that's all you've done since you first started posting here.

[morgian-le-faye.livejournal.com]

I don't see how living in a way unpleasing to a deity would make my parents unhappy. And what is unpleasing to your deity? Every single person interprets the bible s differently that what you see as unpleasing and what one of my equally devout friends sees displeasing are completely different. So that problem does not help. Secondly, if god had wanted to heal this marriage, he wouldn't have allowed it to happen in the first place. My dad happens to be a sociopath. That is not something that cn magically be fixed and no drugs can fix it. The marriage was doomed from the start, but my mother didn't know that because she did not know my dad was a sociopath. tI'm not saying my dad is a bad person (and anyone who thinks that all sociopaths are bad people are completely wrong. Sociopath just means they cannot feel emotion). So to tell me that a deity can magically fix this is just insulting to my intelligence.

And yes, there is a certain responsibility and self-sacrifice to love. However, to sacrifice one's entire happiness because one's husband cannot and never will love her is too much of a sacrifice. To me, that sacrifice is more immoral than staying in the marriage because ultimately, it is a lack of respect to oneself. We cannot respect others until we learn to respect ourselves.

Regarding black and white, clearly your ideas of what's right and wrong are different from mine. They are also different from many of my devout Christian friends who do believe in the bible and that the bible is the word of god. This is not something we will ever agree on, and you can continue to argue it, but at this point, isn't it better to just let sleeping dogs lie? I am responding mainly because I thought I should make it clear that not all marriages are as fixable as you seem to think they are. However, I think I shall bow out now as we will continue to run circles and we will never see the other as correct.

I will say, I am confused as to why you continue to post on wolfpurplemoon's blog. As a guest here, I strive to be respectful. However, I am seeing less respect and more pushing of beliefs. I have yet to see anything constructive from your posts. They seem to bring up a point of how we don't read with a proper view and then attack some idea you don't like and attribute it to atheists. I find it sad that you find a need to preach to a group of people who do not believe your arguments and never will believe your arguments unless you come up with something we've never heard before. As it is, we could play a game of bingo with you responses.

I don't mean to come across as rude, and I apologize to wolfpurplemoon for all that I'm writing and saying on her blog. However, I think you really need to address if you are doing any good here.

[wolfpurplemoon]

Now this is a topic that is very close to home for me.

My parents separated when I was 10 and then Mum moved out with me and my brother about a year later.

In the years leading up to the separation it was incredibly upsetting to witness their progressively disintegrating relationship and that environment was not a place that children should be brought up in.

But 15 years on and Mum and Dad now have a amicable relationship and can be in the same room without screaming at each other and my brother and I are close to both of them.

So I totally agree that it is immoral to stay together for the sake of the kids. As long as the kids feel loved and wanted, divorce is definitely better for their sake.

[morgian-le-faye.livejournal.com]

A, I'm sorry about the super long reply up above. B, thank you. I've been meaning to ask for a while, could I add you to my personal friend's list?

[(Anonymous)]

Hi Wolf. Read your comment of yesterday and today on Job.
Yes it can be confusing but maybe u want to try and read Job in one sitting. Sounds terribly long I know but if u read it like a "story" it won't be. U will get the whole picture and bettet understand the reasonings. Initially the Bible was not devided into chapters and verses in any case. It was done in order to make referencing and finding your place in the Bible easier. Hope this helps u. Don't be discouraged. Perservere. You will c it as u read on. And I shall be praying 4 u. With love in Christ because I know how much He cares about u.

[bill_sheehan.livejournal.com]

Oh - WolfPurpleMoon, one more thing. Compare Job's protestation of innocence in chapter 31 with the Declaration of Innocence in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, written about 1600 BCE. Search here for "Negative Confession": http://www.aldokkan.com/religion/dead1.htm

[wolfpurplemoon]

There's definitely some similarities there, I understand that the bible is a collection of stories that had been passed down for many years before they were written down, so I'm not surprised that the stories that appear in the bible share elements from other sources.

Oh and call me Amy, please! :)