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

[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.