I have faith in the love of God. I do not understand the love of God. I link myself, my soul to the love of God through Christ. I do not understand even Christ. I don’t even understand the bible. In fact there is more of the universe that I don’t understand than there is that I do understand. Perhaps I am just too stupid.
None of this troubles me, although I do think about a lot of it from time to time. I just find the use of my lack of capacity to know and understand an unlikely measure of the truth of God, or even the universe.
But Christ is someone I know. And He loves me. And He is. I have no evidence which I can share with you to prove it. Nor do I believe that evidence is of any particular importance in the matter of faith. Evidence of love is important, but very hard to define.
Disproof is very hard to manage, and proof even harder. I don’t bother much with it, since I have faith that God loves you, as well, and will make that clear to you, if you are willing to be loved, and to love. I recommend that. Practice by loving ever single soul you encounter in your life, as if that person was the Lord God Himself. One day, it will be.
The second one is incorrect/incomplete. We can not know the mind of God before we receive the Holy Spirit, after which we become one with God, once we do and learn to Hear Him, He instructs us, actually He starts instructing us before that, like a father saying “hi, I Love you” to his newborn, but it takes a while for us to understand the words, though we understand the hugs from him.
I’m not a theist but I get the impression they would liken humans’ relationship with God to small children’s relationships with their parents: Children cannot understand an adult’s mind, but they trust their parents love them and will choose what’s best for them. (And if they don’t so trust them, tough. )
The problem is, this is used to explain why that shot is necessary. It is also used for explaining why beating the snot out of the kid for no reason is necessary. God appears to have beaten the snot out of us several times at least.
I guess the original question is still in question. I can certainly understand not having evidence for something, or not believing that evidence is important for something, yet believing it and having faith in it all the same. But I can’t understand on one hand saying that you cannot understand something, yet have faith in an understandable characteristic of that thing. Even if you do not understand it, there must be something about that quality that leads you to call it “love”, otherwise you wouldn’t have any reason to call it that over anything else.
To go with your earlier example, your infant child does not and cannot comprehend the motivations for your actions, or even that there is a “you” at all. That certainly does not mean that any love you have, or love you show by your actions, does not exist. But to the infant, it doesn’t. How can it define something it does not recognise? I’m not asking for hard evidence, hard proof. If your answer is simply “I have faith that God is loving because I have a feeling that it is so” then that is a good enough answer for me on this. But something along those lines still indicates a level of faith in understanding.
I think i’ve asked you this one before, so I apologise if it’s a repeat; if we cannot know the mind of God before we recieve the Holy Spirit, then how can we honestly and correctly search for it and attempt to make ourselves suitable for it? You can’t look for something if you don’t know what you’re looking for. You wouldn’t be able to understand the father saying he loves you if you didn’t know you were suppposed to pick up on auditory clues, that the sounds he was making were meaningful.
But Job’s righteousness wasn’t in question, right? (because if it was, the exercise is moot) Both Satan and God accepted Job as “righteous.”
The question was “why?”
Its true that the answer to that question said something about Job as well as God. In questioning “the general righteousness of man”, Satan was questioning the underlying motivations for a life of “Godliness.”
Was there a compelling reason to love and serve God other than the blessings that may flow from it? In other words, is there a reason to love and serve God for who he is, rather than what he gives us?
The answer to that may [have] incriminate[d] Job, but Job was one man among many. There is only one God, however, and to the extent this would have exposed God as being “unlovable” for who he is, it had much greater implications than the supposed integrity of one man.
That the greater issue of God’s legitimacy was the primary issue is highlighted both in Elihu’s dialogue to Job and his accusers, but also in the dialogue God had with Job in the concluding chapters.
I was using “righteousness” to indicate actions and intent which would indicate a motivation of true Godliness. That is to say, what is not in question is whether Job professes faith, or whether Job serves, but whether he does those things because of a desire to emulate God and be a good person (or however you would define Godliness), or because of a desire for those rewards which a person who acts thus gets? Is he “in it” out of selflessness or selfishness, to put it succinctly.
Here’s where we part ways. I do not interpret this as putting God into question; in Elihu’s speech, he speaks as if the very notion of God not being worthy of service because of who he is as entirely rejectable and that to even *question *the notion is a sign of arrogance.
But Job is a stand-in for man as a whole. God’s legitimacy isn’t what’s in question - it’s why Job (and man in general) serve. God’s legimitacy is only addressed by Elihu and God himself in terms of utterly refusing any idea whatsoever that it could possibly be in question. Job’s, and mankind’s, service to God, however, most certainly is an issue, considering that the chapter shows several instances of men suggesting and complaining that the rewards of service be rendered. I do not disagree your interpretation would be of greater import, but I do disagree that it’s an issue at all, let alone the primary issue. The primary issue is “Why do men serve God? What is their motivation?”.
As a non-theist, I think this is only really a contradiction if the theist is arguing that god is inherently and fundamentally incomprehensible to the degree that he can’t even be explained in general terms without the analogies losing relevence. Which I have seen asserted on this board, but which hardly seems the norm.
When the average theist says something like ‘We cannot know the mind of God’, it’s usually clear that they only mean that his methods are inscrutable, but not his motives. (Usually the theists claim to be quite clear on the motives.) There’re lots of arguments where this is uncompelling regarding the larger point they’re trying to make, of course ;), but it’s not itself a self-contradictory position.
This is largely true, for Elihu sees it as rejectable, but not impossible.
But I think you’re missing the point. Job isn’t being accused of rejecting *“God as being worthy of service” * (etc) for that was never an issue. In fact, early in the book, Job’s own wife challenged him to “curse God and die” and Job flatly refused.
Neither Elihu, or his 3 accusers, ever accuse of rejecting God. Elihu isn’t accusing Job of being on-point and rejecting the “value” of serving God; for that was never an issue. Rather, Elihu accuses Job of going off point; of losing sight of the real issue.
Job has undergone relentless debates with 3 of his friends, and in this protracted debate Elihu has listened patiently and respectfully. (he is younger than those speaking)
Rather than engaging Job and either re-affirming Job’s integrity, (which Job has been strenuously defending) or in the alternative, accusing it, Elihu reorients the conversation to what he considers the main point.
Highlighting mine.
I agree that this is one of 2 main themes in this book, (and I said that at the outset) and I suppose that this first theme speaks to man----as Job as our stand in.
But the moment Elihu speaks he is no longer speaking to this theme. Clearly another theme emerges. As the story develops, God weighs in and ‘rebukes’ Job, and it is clear that not Job has been accused, but God has been accused as well.
In this respect, its fair to say while the first theme (which you noted) speaks to man, the second speaks to God. Had the book of Job ended at Chapter 31 I would agree. But clearly from Chapter 32 the larger context emerges and it is that [additional] theme that the final chapters speak to.
I agree, to an extent. To my reading, Elihu is pointing that it is one thing to expect rewards (of positive or negative, justly determined), and another thing to try and dictate the “terms” the agreement, or to focus on the specifics of what’s going to happen. Elihu’s saying, essentially, “Look, you know you’re going to get what God’s promised; he’s unimpeachable. Questioning when, and how, you’ll get those things is merely distraction from the main point, and your focus on the “rewards” part isn’t particularly impressive. It’s also arrogant to assume that your judgement of when you should get rewarded is greater or more accurate than God’s”. Job’s rejection is not obvious; it is not an outright dismissal of God. But he questions God and his promises; he puts his opinions above God’s. Elihu is pointing out that’s a mistake.
Ta, but I did read it.
This is where we mainly disagree. God’s legitimacy is brought up not because it has been questioned, but because Job’s belief (and man’s, in general) in it has been questioned. The only accusation is in terms of Job’s lack of trust; that’s what Elihu and later God are speaking about and rebuking for. God’s legitimacy isn’t in question - both Elihu and God don’t simply disagree with the idea, but utterly reject the notion of it, that it is in question. The “flaw” is entirely of Job, not God.
I consider those later chapters to still be speaking on the same theme. God isn’t in question; it’s just man, with Job as man’s sample, their test.
It sounds good, but I’m still not sure. It depends on us knowing enough of the mind of God to know that he loves us, but how much of the mind of God do we know?
)