CJC@psuvm.BITNET (09/11/85)
In article <397@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) writes: > In article <2137CJC@psuvm> CJC@psuvm.BITNET writes: > > Then read the Book of Job and consider the deaths of Job's seven sons > >and three daughters and of his very many servants - struck down not for > >any fault of their's, but merely for a petty show of power. > > You haven't read the book of Job or you would understand the valuable > lesson that Job learned from all of it. Is Job's lesson-learning good and sufficient cause for the deaths of so many people? Is this your value of human life, that it doesn't matter how many "common people" die, just as long as one of "God's chosen" benefits in some fashion? It is possible to read an entire book and then concentrate on one part of it; I have done so often, and I have read the Book of Job. I don't see that he learned so much: if a "blameless and upright man" suffers greatly, losing all that he has, and then endures long tirades from his 'friends', then if he calls in desperation on his God, God will answer that He has all power and all knowledge and man may not question Him. *This* is a "valuable lesson" worth the lives of all of his children? --Carolyn J. Clark Bitnet: CJC at PSUVM UUCP : {allegra, akgua, ihnp4}!psuvax!CJC@PSUVM.BITNET
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/12/85)
In article <2225CJC@psuvm> CJC@psuvm.BITNET writes: >>> Then read the Book of Job and consider the deaths of Job's seven sons >>>and three daughters and of his very many servants - struck down not for >>>any fault of their's, but merely for a petty show of power. >> You haven't read the book of Job or you would understand the valuable >> lesson that Job learned from all of it. >Is Job's lesson-learning good and sufficient cause for the deaths of so >many people? Is this your value of human life, that it doesn't matter >how many "common people" die, just as long as one of "God's chosen" >benefits in some fashion? > It is possible to read an entire book and then concentrate on one >part of it; I have done so often, and I have read the Book of Job. >I don't see that he learned so much: if a "blameless and upright man" >suffers greatly, losing all that he has, and then endures long tirades >from his 'friends', then if he calls in desperation on his God, God >will answer that He has all power and all knowledge and man may not >question Him. *This* is a "valuable lesson" worth the lives of all of >his children? First, in Dan's defense: Job is quite possibly the most difficult book in the entire Jewish canon. Ms. Clark's retort doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what the book is about; the important question is: why THAT answer from G-d? I'd also add that one of points of the book is, after all, that the morality of God's actions is at some level unquestionable by man. Be that as it may, this whole discussion (and Dan's rather sanctimonious answer) comes from taking this passage excessively literally. If you had never read Job before, and someone sat down and started reading it to you, you would guess it to be a fairy tale, especially in light of it's "once-upon-a-time" style of opening. The whole point of the story is NOT some historical witness to G-d, unlike (for instance) the book of Exodus. The point of Job is to try and explain something of G-d's nature (even if the explanation is rather unsatisfying). Charley Wingate
pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (09/17/85)
First, may I thank Carolyn Clark for some truly excellent articles on the Book of Job and other examples of the evils of God. Charley Wingate claimed that her retort ``doesn't even begin to scratch the surface,'' but it seems to me that it hits the nail right on the head. And it addresses issues Charley and his fellow God whorshipers seem to ignore. Charley's ultimate defense of God is this: ``the morality of God's actions is unquestionable by man.'' Certainly this is an example of how God has convinced people like Charley that whatever His actions, whatever He does to them, He is ``good.'' Blindly accepting an idea like that is frightening, isn't it? Yet people do this in the name of the evil Damager-God all the time. Isn't it strange that it is claimed that the Book of Job is an exception to the other books in the Bible? Charley says that, unlike the other books of the Bible, THIS one should not be taken literally. Why the sudden exception to the rule? It seems that the desire to claim that this one book is an exception to the rule, the rule of the Bible as inerrant factual historical word of God, is based on a wish to justify God's evil. Charley seems to be saying ``In this case, don't believe that these really represent real things God did, because we are unable to justify them after the fact as well we have done for other actions.'' Charley, why would you seek to go out of your way to justify the evil of the Damager-God in such a distorted way? Be well, -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez
buchbind@agrigene.UUCP (09/18/85)
> > Charley Wingate: > Job is quite possibly the most difficult book in the entire Jewish canon. And its not part of the Christian canon? -- Barry Buchbinder (608)221-5000 Agrigenetics Corp.; 5649 E. Buckeye Rd.; Madison WI 53716 USA {seismo!uwvax!astroatc,decvax,ihnp4}!nicmad!agrigene!buchbind