"GOD is NOT the Author of Confusion"?

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer]

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.
[/QUOTE]

You can change YHWH’s name to anything you want, but we will still be left with an extremely complicated character. He is a character that is full of contradiction, but one his abiding characteristics is that he does care about humanity and humans. If he did not care, there would be no reason for him to come down and deliver his speech.

42

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

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.

[/QUOTE]

Wait so you mean there isn’t any motivation in Christianity to be virtuous other than just “for itself”?

Ezekiel 18:19-20:
When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Ezekiel 33:18-19
When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby. But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is l awful and right, he shall live thereby.

and many more. And lets not forget the biggest motivator of them all, one little notebook god’s got where you damn well better hope your name is in the right column.

43

[QUOTE=Mojo Pin]
Wait so you mean there isn’t any motivation in Christianity to be virtuous other than just “for itself”?
[/QUOTE]
:confused: Christianity? Isn’t that a non sequitur in response to a claim about what the writer of Job was saying?

44

[QUOTE=Mojo Pin]
Wait so you mean there isn’t any motivation in Christianity to be virtuous other than just “for itself”?

Ezekiel 18:19-20:
When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Ezekiel 33:18-19
When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby. But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is l awful and right, he shall live thereby.

and many more. And lets not forget the biggest motivator of them all, one little notebook god’s got where you damn well better hope your name is in the right column.
[/QUOTE]

As Thudlow Boink said, Christianity is pretty much irrelevant to what the writer of the poetry section of the Book of Job was saying.

But, do you really think there will not be contradiction in a book that is made up of a collection of writings that were written over a period of hundreds of years? Hell, the poetry and prose sections of the Book of Job do not fit together perfectly.

45

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
You can change YHWH’s name to anything you want, but we will still be left with an extremely complicated character. He is a character that is full of contradiction, but one his abiding characteristics is that he does care about humanity and humans. If he did not care, there would be no reason for him to come down and deliver his speech.
[/QUOTE]
Malice. Ego. Boredom. The God of the Old Testament is a monster, an egomaniac who toys with the lives of his followers. Why do dictators stand in front of parades ?

[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.
[/quote]
Only to someone who’s determined to defend God. To someone who is not, “God’s a nasty bastard” easily answers all the questions raised.

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
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, there is no way that a just God - at least one capable of intervention - can be reconciled with the world we see. And yes, the God in Job is uncaring or evil, regardless of whether it says the words “God is evil”.

And as I’ve said over and over, and as you haven’t even tried to answer over and over, your “he’s incomprehensible !” argument doesn’t work. It even contradicts your own claims; how can you claim God isn’t uncaring if he’s incomprehensible ?

46

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
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.

[/QUOTE]

Where is this a major theme? Much of what God promised to Abraham was not for virtue, but for obedience. Much time is spent in the later, more historical, books explaining why the evil kings lived a long time and died in bed while the good kings lost wars and died early. The history of Judah at the time belied the idea that virtue leads to reward. Job is basically saying don’t even try to understand, God works in mysterious ways, which I suppose is more reasonable than blaming the ills of a good king on the sins of his father.

The bottom line is that the connection between righteousness and reward had been falsified even back then.

47

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]

And as I’ve said over and over, and as you haven’t even tried to answer over and over, your “he’s incomprehensible !” argument doesn’t work. It even contradicts your own claims; how can you claim God isn’t uncaring if he’s incomprehensible ?
[/QUOTE]

The god, YHWH, that is presented in the Tanakh is being that beyond human understanding. That does not mean things cannot be known about YHWH. I do not see how anyone could read the Tanakh (or the Christian additions) and conclude that YHWH is uncaring. The main thrust of the narrative is YHWH’s relationship to humanity and how YHWH tied his existence to them. The relationship is a complicated one, which is full of contradiction, but YHWH does care about humans and especially the Jews.

If YHWH does not care, why does he come down to give a speech? Why did he even create humans or join into covenants with them?

This is not my view about God or reality. I do not believe that any such god exists. I am not defending God - whatever that means. I am just discussing a piece of literature.

48

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
The god, YHWH, that is presented in the Tanakh is being that beyond human understanding. That does not mean things cannot be known about YHWH. I do not see how anyone could read the Tanakh (or the Christian additions) and conclude that YHWH is uncaring.
[/quote]
Because he does horrible, awful things to people, including his followers. He’s a sadistic, amoral egomaniac.

And it’s very convenient how the only things that can be known about this supposedly incomprehensible being are those that support your claims about him.

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
If YHWH does not care, why does he come down to give a speech? Why did he even create humans or join into covenants with them?
[/quote]
In order to have someone to torment and bully.

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
This is not my view about God or reality. I do not believe that any such god exists. I am not defending God - whatever that means. I am just discussing a piece of literature.
[/QUOTE]
You can say that, but the difference between your rhetoric and a believer trying to defend his delusions seems small, at best.

49

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Because he does horrible, awful things to people, including his followers. He’s a sadistic, amoral egomaniac.

And it’s very convenient how the only things that can be known about this supposedly incomprehensible being are those that support your claims about him.
[/quote]

I could list lots of other things about him as well. He is vengeful, wrathful, proud, asexual, regretful, saddened, etc. But nobody here is claiming that he is not these things.

This goes completely against the text of the Tanakh.

Have you read the Tanakh? Your characterization of YHWH as an egomaniacal gangster is about as perceptive as calling Beowulf a drunk with a sword.

50

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
This goes completely against the text of the Tanakh.
[/QUOTE]
So ? A document written by God-partisans is hardly going to come out and say “He’s an evil bastard, but we follow him anyway.” That doesn’t change the fact that what he’s destribed as doing is evil.

51

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
So ? A document written by God-partisans is hardly going to come out and say “He’s an evil bastard, but we follow him anyway.” That doesn’t change the fact that what he’s destribed as doing is evil.
[/QUOTE]

YHWH is what the text says. This not a biography of a man. This not David McCullough’s Truman. However the writers depict YHWH (with other non-scriptural, human-created sources) is the extend of YHWH’s existence. There is no real YHWH. And the text of the Tanakh depicts YHWH as a complicated being that does care about humans. Is Harper Lee’s depiction of Atticus Finch inaccurate because Fitzgerald was a Atticus-partisan? Would claiming that even make sense?

52

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
YHWH is what the text says. This not a biography of a man. This not David McCullough’s Truman. However the writers depict YHWH (with other non-scriptural, human-created sources) is the extend of YHWH’s existence. There is no real YHWH. And the text of the Tanakh depicts YHWH as a complicated being that does care about humans. Is Harper Lee’s depiction of Atticus Finch inaccurate because Fitzgerald was a Atticus-partisan? Would claiming that even make sense?
[/QUOTE]
Oh, please. Writers, especially writers trying to make some ideological point, quite often have protagonists that they intend to be admirable and heroic, but are actually nasty or stupid or outright evil. The fictionality or lack thereof of the character makes no difference to their morality, except in that we can’t go to the real person and check if they are fictional.

53

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Oh, please. Writers, especially writers trying to make some ideological point, quite often have protagonists that they intend to be admirable and heroic, but are actually nasty or stupid or outright evil.
[/QUOTE]

It goes beyond what they intended. The actual text makes it clear that YHWH does care.

Why would YHWH say this if he did not care? Why would he do most of the stuff he does? Why would he fashion clothes for Adam and Eve? If he just wanted to torture, he would not act to comfort people, nor would he enter into covenants. Face it, YHWH is not an egomaniacal gangster.

Is there some reason you cannot see anything other the wrathful and vengeful side of YHWH? Do you think there is anything beyond the wrath and vengeance? If so, what? And, I will ask again, have you read the Tanakh?

I have made no claims about YHWH’s moral worth. The position of the Book of Job is that humans cannot judge YHWH’s moral worth. And, I agree, if a being like YHWH existed, humans would not be able to judge his moral worth; however, no such being exists.

But, what we were discussing is whether YHWH cares about humans, not his moral worth. I think we can agree that a being that has extremely little moral worth, who is cruel, wrathful, and vengeful, can still care.

54

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
It goes beyond what they intended. The actual text makes it clear that YHWH does care.

Why would YHWH say this if he did not care? Why would he do most of the stuff he does? Why would he fashion clothes for Adam and Eve? If he just wanted to torture, he would not act to comfort people, nor would he enter into covenants. Face it, YHWH is not an egomaniacal gangster.

Is there some reason you cannot see anything other the wrathful and vengeful side of YHWH? Do you think there is anything beyond the wrath and vengeance? If so, what? And, I will ask again, have you read the Tanakh?
[/QUOTE]
The last bit from teh section you quoted, paraphrased: “Sorry I hit you again, honey; I just got mad. But I still love you, no really…”

A wife-beater or abusive parent can say that they love their victims, too. From what I can gather, that just means that they are feeling some emotion, which they think of as love, but which doesn’t seem to meet any useful definition of it.

I would agree that he’s not presented as being consciously hateful. Just capricious and cruel, perhaps ‘against his better nature’. (Which sort of gums up onmibenevolence, that does…)

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
I have made no claims about YHWH’s moral worth. The position of the Book of Job is that humans cannot judge YHWH’s moral worth. And, I agree, if a being like YHWH existed, humans would not be able to judge his moral worth; however, no such being exists.
[/QUOTE]
Humans can judge anything with which they can interact. The being in question may declare their judgement invalid, but the force behind their declaration depends on how quickly they are willing (and able) to silence their detractors.

Given that no such being exists, I’d say he can’t do much about our judging him.

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
But, what we were discussing is whether YHWH cares about humans, not his moral worth. I think we can agree that a being that has extremely little moral worth, who is cruel, wrathful, and vengeful, can still care.
[/QUOTE]
Not for my definition of caring. Not unless you mean “wifebeater caring”, or perhaps “I care if the quarterback gets killed, because then I’ll probably lose my bet on the superbowl!”

55

[QUOTE=begbert2]

Not for my definition of caring. Not unless you mean “wifebeater caring”, or perhaps “I care if the quarterback gets killed, because then I’ll probably lose my bet on the superbowl!”
[/QUOTE]

A wife-beater can still care about and love his wife. Just because a relationship is all fucked-up, does not mean the parties do not care about each other.

56

[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
A wife-beater can still care about and love his wife. Just because a relationship is all fucked-up, does not mean the parties do not care about each other.
[/QUOTE]
Right…you’re setting a pretty low bar for God to jump over here. Me, I can’t even picture the statement “Sure, I beat my kids sometimes, but I really love them!” without the back of mu mind responding ‘Suuuuuure you do. :rolleyes:’

Regardless, I’d say that if the portrayal of God in that story best best matched the behavior of one who will beat his wife or child out of anger (or on a bet!), I’d say that it’s perfectly consistent with the story to call him a cruel, abusive bastard, or various other depreciating names. And, to tie this back to the OP, I would never take such a creature’s word that he’d never do it again. (Heck, a creature that says “I love you” while beating you sounds quite exactly like an ‘author of confusion’ to me.)

57

I don’t think it’s that abusive people are incapable of love. I think it’s that when they claim love, they’re often using it to excuse their behavior, which is where the skepticism comes in. Honestly I think the idea that an abuser is incapable of love is kind of creepy. They’re human beings, after all. Unlike God, who clearly is the opposite of love.

58

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Malice. Ego. Boredom. The God of the Old Testament is a monster, an egomaniac who toys with the lives of his followers.

[/quote]

Der Trihs, why do you always insist on understating your case?

59

[QUOTE=ralph124c]
Is St. Paul therefore correct, that God does not tempt-that all evil comes from inside a man, and not external?
If one were to accept the idea that God tests his believers, then, God would indeed cause confusion-how would one know the right path?
[/QUOTE]

No, God does not temp or test his believers; and evil comes from (possibly within) and definitely externally, from Satan. How would one know the right path? It’s easy… follow God’s commandmants. It’s that easy. God didn’t make it difficult or confusing one bit… He made it crystal clear. Christ even said it… if you love God, follow his commandments.

Mankind makes things confusing for themselves with their giant egos and insatiable need to do their own will. Mankind does this … not God.

God gave us a free will, but his will for us is clearly to do his will all for our own good and peace of mind. If we were wise, if we wanted a peaceful, happy life, our own will would be to do God’s will.

60

[QUOTE=Ensign Edison]
I don’t think it’s that abusive people are incapable of love. I think it’s that when they claim love, they’re often using it to excuse their behavior, which is where the skepticism comes in. Honestly I think the idea that an abuser is incapable of love is kind of creepy. They’re human beings, after all. Unlike God, who clearly is the opposite of love.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I personally have a rather strict definition of love. And I wouldn’t say they’re incapable of love, necessarily - any more than I’d say that a person without anyone who’s alone in the world is incapable of love. It’s just that when they’re beating the hell out of someone, they’re not also feeling love for that person, by my definition of the term.