Job 40-42

[wolfpurplemoon]

God is describing monsters, fire breathing(?) monsters. But whatever it was it convinces Job that God is great and then God gives him back twice as much stuff as he had at the beginning.

I'm not sure you require faith in a God that pops by for a chat (not blind faith anyway), in fact Job says that it is the fact that he's seen God that has convinced him to take back any of the mean stuff he said.

And so Job lived to 140 and had a great rest of his life, glad it turned out OK in the end...

Comments

[vequenor.livejournal.com]

No one said Lot was good or upright. Nor did anyone say he was just. All 2 Peter says is that he was a righteous man(and quite possibly even less than that, considering that the author saw fit to further explain that Lot was depressed by the behavior of those around him; being depressed by evil and actively doing good are two different things.) So, one must wonder what great acclaim there is to being called righteous, since it obviously cannot mean good, just, or upright.

You know, I think I'm noticing a common theme here. You don't like ancient Israelite culture. Good for you; it would have been a lousy place compared to our enlightened times. Do I understand why God did not demand that his people's society conform more to our society's concepts of right and wrong? No, nor do I understand why you or I should assume that what our culture has informed us is moral is the absolute moral authority of the ages. Now, I am not suggesting that the behavior described in the OT should or could be described as moral today; there is no reason that that should be a problem for anyone here today. Who thought selling their daughters was moral? People living thousands of years ago apparently did. Heck, slavery was considered perfectly moral just a couple hundred years ago. Whether or not something is considered moral at one period of history or the other has little, I think, to do with whether or not it actually was moral at any given time.

No, I do not have such a son.

I agree that our morality is different. And I agree that it is reasonable to assume that our morality is better, as that we live with it, and would find any other way of life quite strange. I really have to wonder, though, if we do really understand that might does not make right. After all, aren't you relying on the might of your culture, upbringing, and such to determine what is right?

Hmm...I may have allowed my own understanding of morality to have had too much of a sway here. Ah, well.

[bill_sheehan.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to debate the meaning of 2 Peter - if you want to argue that "righteous" doesn't mean, well, "righteous," go for it - I just don't have the time for casuistry, fun though it is.

I cannot, however, leave unchallenged your equivocation. There is a great deal of difference between the "might" of a man holding a gun to your head and the "might" of thousands of years of evolving culture and civilization.

My memory is not what it used to be (and never was), but what would Kant say about your argument that something like slavery, while immoral now, was moral in an earlier age? What do you think the slave would have to say about it?

[vequenor.livejournal.com]

As far as I know, "righteous" is defined as "morally right or justifiable." Since the "or" allows "morally justifiable" to be a definition of "righteous," I believe that Lot could be considered righteous. Considering the cultures involved, his actions would seem to be very justifiable to me. I'm guessing you would disagree, and I doubt I could convince you; I just didn't want to seem like a complete dunce. So, as much fun as it would admittedly be to try to argue that righteous does not mean righteous, the provided definition for the word is quite suitable.

To challenge an equivocation, would it not be helpful to explain where the equivocation breaks down? I could try to respond, but since you've not really said anything other than "I object" I can't really form a decent response.

I fail to see what Kant has to do with anything. I have not mentioned or relied upon him to any extent throughout the discussion, and his opinions, however well formed they were, are hardly pertinent. I neither know nor care what the slave would have thought about it. Quite frankly, I don't see what the slave's opinion, or the opinions of Kant, have to do with anything.