# "GOD is NOT the Author of Confusion"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 26, 2008, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-is-not-the-author-of-confusion/442802 "2008-03-26T15:56:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea666f/32.png) [@Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-is-not-the-author-of-confusion/442802/21 "2008-03-27T00:17:10Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] The complexity comes in part from the development of God over time. Job, if I understand it, is considered to be one of the oldest books. [/QUOTE] The prose sections are considered some of the oldest. The poetry is much newer. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-is-not-the-author-of-confusion/442802/22 "2008-03-27T01:44:47Z")
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun] Try to keep in mind that it did not really happen. (I am also an agnostic ,and the Book of Job does not push my buttons any more than Hildy’s actions in _His Girl Friday_.) [/quote] But then, to the best of my knowledge, there are no major religions based on “His Girl Friday”, that claim both that the work is inerrant, and also that Hildy (to use your example) is all-loving, all-merciful, and all-just. (Though from a quick read of the synopsis it would seem Walter Burns is the more villainous). 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-is-not-the-author-of-confusion/442802/23 "2008-03-27T03:05:37Z")
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun] One of the beauties of the Tanakh is the complexity of YHWH. [/QUOTE] YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-is-not-the-author-of-confusion/442802/24 "2008-03-27T03:08:38Z")
If God supposedly is the creator of \*\*\*everything, \*\*\*wouldn’t that include confusion? ---
**Author:** ![Anomalous\_Reading](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b3f665/32.png) [@Anomalous\_Reading](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anomalous_Reading)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-is-not-the-author-of-confusion/442802/25 "2008-03-27T03:19:24Z")
God hardened the heart of Pharoah… it appears that intervention might have even been necessary to the narrative. Is that not confusion? ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-is-not-the-author-of-confusion/442802/26 "2008-03-27T16:13:55Z")
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun] Did YHWH ask the Satan to anything, or did the Satan solicit permission? [/QUOTE] Who gives a fuck? What is the moral difference, precisely, between an agent soliciting his employer’s permission to torture someone and the employer giving the order without solicitation? Either way, the schmuck gets tortured because the employer decided it would be so. ---
**Author:** ![Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea666f/32.png) [@Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-is-not-the-author-of-confusion/442802/27 "2008-03-27T16:36:14Z")
[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer] Who gives a fuck? What is the moral difference, precisely, between an agent soliciting his employer’s permission to torture someone and the employer giving the order without solicitation? Either way, the schmuck gets tortured because the employer decided it would be so. [/QUOTE] It is not the story of an employer. It is the story of the author of all existence who is beyond all human understanding. And, again, it is not to be taken literally. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-is-not-the-author-of-confusion/442802/28 "2008-03-27T16:53:33Z")
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun] It is not the story of an employer. It is the story of the author of all existence who is beyond all human understanding. [/quote] We can understand quite well what he ( supposedly ) does to us. And if he’s that much beyond human understanding, believers like yourself should stop claiming that he’s good, or that you know what he wants. Instead of oscillating between “You cannot understand !” when someone points out logical consequences or follies, and “We know **exactly** what God wants everyone to do !” when they want to push their pet beliefs on the rest of us. And if God is so incomprehensible that you can’t morally judge his actions, you can’t logically call him “good” either. Not that it matters much, since we can and do call things like natural disasters bad; effects matter more than motivations. [QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun] And, again, it is not to be taken literally. [/QUOTE] First, the OP is looking at it from a literalist viewpoint - and that’s just as “valid” as your claim that it shouldn’t be taken literally. Second, so what ? You claim that it’s supposed to teach people about their relationship with God; for that purpose, there’s no difference between a “real” portrayal of God as uncaring scum, and a parable of God acting as uncaring scum. ---
**Author:** ![Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea666f/32.png) [@Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-is-not-the-author-of-confusion/442802/29 "2008-03-27T17:03:22Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] We can understand quite well what he ( supposedly ) does to us. And if he’s that much beyond human understanding, believers like yourself should stop claiming that he’s good, or that you know what he wants. Instead of oscillating between “You cannot understand !” when someone points out logical consequences or follies, and “We know **exactly** what God wants everyone to do !” when they want to push their pet beliefs on the rest of us. [/quote] As I said above, I am an agnostic. And you can pretty much take that to mean I am an atheist. > [@](#): > > First, the OP is looking at it from a literalist viewpoint - and that’s just as “valid” as your claim that it shouldn’t be taken literally. Second, so what ? You claim that it’s supposed to teach people about their relationship with God; for that purpose, there’s no difference between a “real” portrayal of God as uncaring scum, and a parable of God acting as uncaring scum. It is not just as valid to read Wisdom Literature from a literalist viewpoint. Wisdom Literature is a specific form of Ancient Near East writing that was never intended to be taken literally. YHWH does not come across as uncaring in the Book of Job. Did you read his speech from the whirlwind? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-is-not-the-author-of-confusion/442802/30 "2008-03-27T17:39:12Z")
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun] It is not just as valid to read Wisdom Literature from a literalist viewpoint. Wisdom Literature is a specific form of Ancient Near East writing that was never intended to be taken literally. [/quote] ALL of the supernatural claims ( and a lot of the rest ) in the Bible are nonsense. Why that particular bit of nonsense was written in the first place has no bearing on whether it should be taken literally, or seriously for that matter. NONE of the supernatural events should be; but if you are, then the exact reason someone made that bit of nonsense up doesn’t make it any more or less valid. And as I said, but you ignored, it doesn’t matter. [QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun] YHWH does not come across as uncaring in the Book of Job. Did you read his speech from the whirlwind? [/QUOTE] Who cares about speeches ? Action, or inaction, counts; words don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea666f/32.png) [@Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-is-not-the-author-of-confusion/442802/31 "2008-03-27T17:47:08Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] ALL of the supernatural claims ( and a lot of the rest ) in the Bible are nonsense. Why that particular bit of nonsense was written in the first place has no bearing on whether it should be taken literally, or seriously for that matter. NONE of the supernatural events should be; but if you are, then the exact reason someone made that bit of nonsense up doesn’t make it any more or less valid. And as I said, but you ignored, it doesn’t matter. [/QUOTE] Is _The Lord of the Rings_ nonsense? Is a literal reading of _The Lord of the Rings_ equally valid to a non-literal reading? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-is-not-the-author-of-confusion/442802/32 "2008-03-27T17:58:45Z")
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun] Is _The Lord of the Rings_ nonsense? [/quote] In the sense I was using the term ( and I’m sure you know it ), yes. If you claimed that _The Lord of the Rings_ was history, I’d call your claim nonsense. If you claimed that parts of it should be taken more or less seriously because when writing some he knew it was fiction, and in writing others he was high on drugs and thought it was real, I’d also claim that was nonsense. It’s all fiction, and all equally valid. [QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun] Is a literal reading of _The Lord of the Rings_ equally valid to a non-literal reading? [/QUOTE] That depends on if the incidents in the story are IN-UNIVERSE meant to be an actual description of what happened or not. ---
**Author:** ![Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea666f/32.png) [@Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-is-not-the-author-of-confusion/442802/33 "2008-03-27T18:12:34Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] In the sense I was using the term ( and I’m sure you know it ), yes. If you claimed that _The Lord of the Rings_ was history, I’d call your claim nonsense. [/quote] > [@](#): > > That depends on if the incidents in the story are IN-UNIVERSE meant to be an actual description of what happened or not. Wisdom Literature is not meant to be an actual description of what happened. It is supposed to teach about the nature of God and virtue. Wisdom Literature stories are not history lessons and should not be taken as such. And you are contradicting yourself. Before you said that it did not matter why the story was written or if was intended to be taken literally: > [@](#): > > And as I said, but you ignored, it doesn’t matter. So , does it matter or not? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-is-not-the-author-of-confusion/442802/34 "2008-03-27T18:26:38Z")
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun] Wisdom Literature is not meant to be an actual description of what happened. It is supposed to teach about the nature of God and virtue. Wisdom Literature stories are not history lessons and should not be taken as such. [/quote] Again, that is **irrelevant**. [QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun] And you are contradicting yourself. Before you said that it did not matter why the story was written or if was intended to be taken literally: [/QUOTE] No, I was talking about something quite different. In THAT case, I was saying that it didn’t matter, because either way God was portrayed as uncaring at best, and people’s proper relationship with him portrayed as abusive. ---
**Author:** ![Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea666f/32.png) [@Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-is-not-the-author-of-confusion/442802/35 "2008-03-27T18:38:45Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] Again, that is **irrelevant**. No, I was talking about something quite different. In THAT case, I was saying that it didn’t matter, because either way God was portrayed as uncaring at best, and people’s proper relationship with him portrayed as abusive. [/QUOTE] But YHWH is not portrayed as uncaring. He limits the actions the Satan is allowed to take. YHWH, also, comes down speaks to Job, explaining things in the best possible manner that a human can understand. It is not that YHWH does not care. It is that he has more to care about than Job. You keep wanting to judge the character of YHWH as a man. He is not a man. It makes no more sense to judge YHWH by human standards of morality than it makes to judge the Sun or a cougar. Is proper view of the people’s relationship to the Atlantic Ocean abusive? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-is-not-the-author-of-confusion/442802/36 "2008-03-27T19:13:39Z")
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun] But YHWH is not portrayed as uncaring. He limits the actions the Satan is allowed to take. [/quote] Big whoop. He could have just forbidden Satan to do anything. That’s like claiming that someone who commands the torture of a man and his family is a caring man, because he tells his torturer “keep the man alive”. [QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun] YHWH, also, comes down speaks to Job, explaining things in the best possible manner that a human can understand. [/quote] And again, so what ? [QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun] You keep wanting to judge the character of YHWH as a man. He is not a man. It makes no more sense to judge YHWH by human standards of morality than it makes to judge the Sun or a cougar. [/quote] He is dealing with humans. ANYTHING that affects humans can be judged by human standards, because from the perspective of the humans doing the judging, that’s what matters. And as I said - and as you ignored, like you ignore most of what I say - if we buy your argument we can’t call God good either, or understand why he does anything or predict what he will and won’t do. [QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun] Is proper view of the people’s relationship to the Atlantic Ocean abusive? [/QUOTE] If people were told that it was intelligent, and they were supposed to submit to drowning because it’s more powerful and incomprehensible, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-is-not-the-author-of-confusion/442802/37 "2008-03-27T19:45:18Z")
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun] But YHWH is not portrayed as uncaring. He limits the actions the Satan is allowed to take. YHWH, also, comes down speaks to Job, explaining things in the best possible manner that a human can understand. It is not that YHWH does not care. It is that he has more to care about than Job. [/quote] Not uncaring? God tells Satan not to kill Job because how can Job be tested if he’s dead? That’s about as caring as a torturer keeping someone alive to feel more pain. > [@](#): > > You keep wanting to judge the character of YHWH as a man. He is not a man. It makes no more sense to judge YHWH by human standards of morality than it makes to judge the Sun or a cougar. What does the Whirlwind passage say except “I’m older, bigger and tougher than you, so kiss my ass?” A bully beats a kid up, beats up his friends, and takes all his money. Kid goes to bully and complains. The bully then tells the kid how much bigger and tougher he is, and what is the kid goint to do about it. The kid says “okay, I’ll kiss your ass” and the bully, clearly pleased, give the kid his money back, and promises not to beat him up any more. How uplifting. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2008, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-is-not-the-author-of-confusion/442802/38 "2008-03-27T23:22:59Z")
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun] It is not that YHWH does not care. It is that he has more to care about than Job. [/quote] _Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.” - **Job 2:3** _ I don’t think your assertion of God having more to care about than Job stands up well in the face of God singling out one little human to make a point. ---
**Author:** ![Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea666f/32.png) [@Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2008, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-is-not-the-author-of-confusion/442802/39 "2008-03-28T03:28:57Z")
[QUOTE=Apollyon] _Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.” - **Job 2:3** _ I don’t think your assertion of God having more to care about than Job stands up well in the face of God singling out one little human to make a point. [/QUOTE] We have to look at this from the perspective of the Book of Job being a revolutionary piece of Wisdom Literature. The poetry section Book of Job breaks from the more traditional view of Judaism that fortune is tied to sin. The writer of the poetry section Job rejects that view. The writer is showing that sin is not the cause of misfortune. To show just how sinless Job is the writer has YHWH himself say that Job is sinless. The writer is tying to break the connection between sin and fortune. The story is, in part, a lesson about virtue. The writer is saying that one should not be virtuous expecting great fortune. One should be virtuous for itself. The story, also, is about the nature of God; however, it raises more questions about the nature of God than it can answer. Is there a way to reconcile a just God with the world we see? The answer of the poetry section of the Book of Job is that the answer is beyond human understanding. But the Book of Job does not say that God is uncaring or evil. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2008, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-is-not-the-author-of-confusion/442802/40 "2008-03-28T03:38:00Z")
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun] The story, also, is about the nature of God; however, it raises more questions about the nature of God than it can answer. Is there a way to reconcile a just God with the world we see? The answer of the poetry section of the Book of Job is that the answer is beyond human understanding. **But the Book of Job does not say that God is uncaring or evil**. [/QUOTE] No, but it \*\*paints \*\* God that way. If we told the same story with the word “God” replaced with “Zeus,” “Inanna,” or “Galactus,” no one would call the deity in question anything but a prick. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-is-not-the-author-of-confusion/442802.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-is-not-the-author-of-confusion/442802.md?page=3)