the book of job, and an unjust god

[stupid board]This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 12-25-2004 01:33 AM

[stupid board]This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 12-25-2004 01:33 AM

[stupid board]This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 12-25-2004 01:33 AM

interesting. i have little respect for christmas, as a christian. it's a pagan holiday, actually. if the bible can be reasonably trusted, jesus was born sometime in the spring.but i think my answer is that i don't seek comfort in belief. to some degree i suppose i must, becuase i trust that god know what he's doing, but at the same time i know such awful atrocities happen.i think it might actually be more comforting to not believe in god. at least then i would know that all evil is merely the result our own decisions...

what's the problem with these verses?THEY'RE NOT IN THE BOOK OF EXODUS.

quote:

---

exodus 10:1

​

And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh:
for I have hardened his heart

---

now, are we still having problems reading this verse? god said to moses "i'm manipulating pharoah's emotions." let's read further:

quote:

---

Exdodus 10:16,17

​

Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron in haste; and he said, "I have sinned against the LORD your God, and against you. Now therefore forgive, I pray thee, my sin only this once, and intreat the LORD your God, that he may take away from me this death only."

---

after moses recalls the plague:

quote:

---

Exodus 10:20

​

But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.

---

this happens TEN TIMES. every time, pharoah is ready to let the hebrews go, and everytime god hardens his heart. this covers, if memory serves, chapters 7 through 11 of the book of exodus. you can pick any passage and look at it, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM say that god manipulated pharoah, and "hardened his heart" not that pharoah himself did. no, that would be you, sir. to harden one's heart means to stifle compassion. it's what you do when you see a homeless guy and don't want to help.

i've found lots of errors, myself. you'd think that would solve the issue, wouldn't you? but no... i think the people who claim inerrency have never actually studied the bible. i doubt most have read very much of it either. funny, i don't really. i just happen to subscribe to similar beliefs. i find it roughly equivalent to any other collection of literature from similar time-periods. a little more meanigful in some areas, and a little less in other (like numbers. ugh) mmmmm, on topic.ironically, i don't totally agree. i don't think his behaviour is reprehensible because that would imply that he is held to the same moralistic standards that we are, which is exactly the opposite of what i'm trying to demonstrate. god's actions are quite out of what we would call moral though, yes. because the bible also records instances of his love, caring, and compassion, well before the new testament. christians treat god as a static, one-sided character, and have to ignore large portions of their own book to do so.the bible's portrait of god is by thousands of different authors, recording the full gamut of human ideas of this sort of god. it's broad and varied and changing from book to book, and sometimes verse to verse. but more importantly, it's incredibly disjoint and contradictory. what we have is not at all an accuracte portrayal of god. it's not a photograph, it's the impressions of many, many different people.i don't think god is worthy of worship by his actions. i don't think god is justified by his actions, rather the other way around. i think his actions are justified because i believe in god. blatantly a religious choice, and not really one i'm interested in debating. it all basically boils down to that, really. you can't believe or disbelieve in god because his actions. you can choose to follow or not follow based on a spurious record of his actions, but belief is something else entirely.also, i suspect job to be a work of fiction. that would make this particular instance of justification for the actions of god kind of moot, since it never really happened. rather, we should be asking what the author is trying to say about god. i don't think it's "god sucks, don't have faith," but more of a way of addressing that concern. it starts with the premise that bad things happen to good people, and then follows from there.does it have an answer? "the lord is my shepard;
i shall not want.
he makes my lay down in green pastures..."there's a lot of really beautiful stuff in psalms, among other places. some of the ot barely even talks about god. ruth doesn't say much at all, and neither does esther. song of solomon doesn't even talk about god AT ALL. can we keep those? kind of depends on how it's read. but yeah, i'm with you that a lot of the "moralistic" teachings in the ot make little sense today. (did they then?) agreed. christ was a cool guy, too bad christianity has very little to do with him. matthew 6 actually contains my favourite passage in the new testament:

quote:

---

Matthew 6:5,6:

​

"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites: for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the stree corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly i say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."

---

this passage has not only influenced my belief, but has probably ruined a relationship. i had a christian girlfriend for a little while, still good friends. but she couldn't understand why i couldn't share my faith with her, and why i wouldn't pray with her, and why her church made me itch.i've been to too many christian churches where it's all about the show. and it disgusts me. because i've read what jesus said, and that's not it. i suggested to a few people that while we're outlawing gay marriage, we should also punish divorce with execution. they thought i was crazy, but i quoted mark 10, and leviticus, and explained that if we're going to go for a biblical definition of marriage, this is it.but between you and me, that was grossly perverting the text. jesus spoke in personal precepts, not laws. he wasn't saying we should stone divorcees, but that people should take marriage seriously and try to make it work, instead of throwing away serious commitments. but this is philosophy and religion -- NOT legislation. and it should stay that way.if there's anything i will defend more ferociously than my religion, it's my civil liberties.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 12-27-2004 05:30 AM

agree, but you seem to be mistaken as to what they are. here's the only instance the phrase "ten commandments" in the book of exodus:

quote:

---

Exd 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

---

look at that. chapter 34.as for the mosaic covenant (and it is a covenant, terms of agreement, actually) there are anywhere between 9 and 17 terms that israelites must follow, depending on how you count. and believe me, different groups count them differently, even though most christian groups divide them into ten.

no, i didn't. i'm talking about FOUR CHAPTERS in exodus. i chose one example, and told you to look for the other nine. yes, but this is a simple question of GRAMMAR. exodus quotes god as saying that god hardened the heart of pharoah. not that pharoah hardened his own heart. how is this concept hard to understand? you're not arguing with me, you're arguing AGAINST THE BIBLE. the bible says that god manipulated pharoah heart.i would love to think that god doesn't do that kind of thing, because that's really challenging to the idea of free will, among other things. but that's just not what the bible says. it does not say that pharoah hardened his own heart, it says that god did it. maybe other books talk of other people hardening their own hearts. it's a common expression. big deal. maybe other books say that pharoah hardened his own heart. but those books are not exodus. they are by different authors, at different times, and are probably trying to correct this very problem. this happens a lot of times in the bible -- see:

quote:

---

2Sa 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

---

quote:

---

1Ch 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

---

one instance is correcting the other, because the idea of god CHANGED. where one idea of god said that he could provoke men to evil, and be manipulative, the other idea did not, and this action was attributed to a new entity -- satan. dualism in christianity arose out of this very conflict.but simply put, that's NOT what the earlier books say. yet you still seem incapable of reading the text. old philosophy, divine right of kings. those who rule must rule because god allows them to. this, taken in context of the rest of the book (and the verses i've been talking about) is even more example of god manipulating men. and in every instance, he DID. and then god changed his mind. have you even read exodus? pharoah almost lets them go about 9 times. and this is a suprise? of course the bible records that people who fear god prosper. the bible can be very biased. see the book of kings and the sin of jereboam. otherwise perfect kings are damned by the book because the neglected to tear down two temples and send everyone TO ANOTHER COUNTRY to worship.

you're wrong. look:

quote:

---

Exd 10:16 Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron in haste; and he said, I have sinned against the LORD your God, and against you.
Exd 10:17 Now therefore forgive, I pray thee, my sin only this once, and intreat the LORD your God, that he may take away from me this death only.
Exd 10:18 And he went out from Pharaoh, and intreated the LORD.

---

quote:

---

Exd 9:27 And Pharaoh sent, and called for Moses and Aaron, and said unto them, I have sinned this time: the LORD [is] righteous, and I and my people [are] wicked.
Exd 9:28 Intreat the LORD (for [it is] enough) that there be no [more] mighty thunderings and hail; and I will let you go, and ye shall stay no longer.

---

it's a really good book, you should read it sometime. or watch the movie or something. but after every plague, pharoah recants, and says he'll let the hebrews go. when pharoah just can't harden his heart anymore, god hardens his heart for him. do i have to find every example of this and post it? god does it, because, according to god in the verse you posted, that wouldn't be very cool if pharoah just let them go. god wants to do something really spectacular. well that's because god starts out with parlor tricks. if moses had come in and said "god's pissed, can we go now? look i'll prove it:" and then, i dunno, made everyone in pharoah's court explode into little gory bits, pharoah's house and every pyramid in egypt vanish, and made goats fly out pharoah's own eyes, maybe he would have been more convinced. slight of hand just doesn't impress anyone that much. why did god put him in his place ten times? why did he harden pharoah's heart ten times, after pharoah said "you know what, just go" ten times? you really should read the book. at least the first half anyways. the bits about laws and tabernacles is kind of boring. yes, and by chapter ten, it's clear the god is manipulating pharoah.

the story of jesus is written in a fundamentally different manner than books like exodus or kings. jesus is essentially the father of martyrdom. having him and his followers prosper would send the wrong message.the ironic part is that the romans were not as eager to martyr christians as books like acts would lead us to believe. please. i challenge you again. here's a picture of king jehu kissing the feet of shalmanessar iii of assyria. please point me to book, chapter, and verse that describes this meeting? because my bible simply doesn't have it.you see, the book of kings LIKES jehu. he gets rid of jezebel, a foriegn queen, refuses alliances with foriegn powers, and generally works towards the consolidation of israel and judah. and so they neglect to mention that because of his refusal of alliances with the heathens, he LOST to the invading shalmanessar iii. it also suspiciously neglects to mention that his predeccor, with the help of the alliance, BEAT the first shalmanessar.bias? yes.jehu, even though the bible likes him -- still has the sin of jeroboam, and is still damned. find me a king in the northern kingdom that DOESN'T have the sin of jeroboam. i dare you. idolatry is thrown around alot in the ot. what, pray tell, are the cherubim on the ark of covenant? how are they different, as physical objects? they're both made of gold, both associate with worship, and in actuality likely have the same function.you see, almost no god is ever depicted in mesopotamia. they all tend to be aniconic. you can't make pictures of them. sound familiar? they do traditionally make idols of offerings to the gods, or seats for the gods (such as the cherubim). there's a really good chance that the golden calves were just the same things.it is however easy to sling at the northern kingdom, who you're mad at, as an insult and a reason god doesn't love them as much. now, let's look at this REALISTICALLY for a second.israel and judah are split. jerusalem is the capital of judah, and "sort of" the center for worship. there other smaller temples around, and nobody has a problem with this until josiah is made king. josiah has the book of deuteronomy handy, which no other king before him had (according to the book of kings). deuteronomy says the following:

quote:

---

Deu 12:11-14

​

Then there shall be a place which the LORD your God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there; thither shall ye bring all that I command you; your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which ye vow unto the LORD: Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place that thou seest: But in the place which the LORD shall choose in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, and there thou shalt do all that I command thee.

---

leviticus doesn't say this, nor does exodus. but the book josiah has does. so until that time having temples elsewhere was fine. (kings was obviously written after josiah, agreed?)so when jeroboam builds his temples in dan and bethel, it's ok. why would jeroboam send worshippers to another country to worship? that's outrageous. they don't get along with judah, obviously, otherwise they'd still be one country. so he builds some temples in his own kingdom.now, when josiah "discovers" that it's a sin to build temples anywhere but jerusalem, because apparently god can only live in one place, it's quite obviously a shot at the northern kingdom. they're just calling them idolators, falsely, btw. the fact that it's a calf should be suspicious. why do they keep making calves? -- maybe it's a reference to exodus. (or maybe exodus is a reference to jeroboam. take your pick)as a side note, you realize that any church you go to today is of course guilty under the sins of jeroboam, right? not only are the churches NOT the temple in jerusalem (this i can guarantee) but the priests are probably not sons of levi.