Book of Job -- Little help here

quote:

---

But trying to dismiss spiritual experiences as mere psychological/chemical hallucinations is just biasness.

---

But similar "experiences" can be induced by chemical or physiological means.Are those induced experiences discernable from the "real" spiritual experiences by those who experience them?But this is off topic and needs to go to it's own thread. I'd be happy to discuss it with you. Let me know if you would like me to start a thread.

You don't understand what that Tanakh is when it comes to the Jewish faith. The tanakh is the story of a people's search for God, and an example of how even people who are flawed can find sanctity in God. It also is some rules to follow to help bring people closer to god.One of those rules is 'NO HUMAN SACRIFICE'. This was demonstrated by Abraham, when the ram was provided instead of Issac. That was considered a promise from god never to require a human sacrifice ever again. That makes the concept of "Jesus was a sacrifice for our sins" against what the Jewish faith believes about God.It's not a free gift if you have to give up everything you believe in to accept it.

In the Jewish religion (the religion that actually included Job inthe bible), Shaitan (Or the accuser), does not actually have free will (None of the angels do). THat means that everything that satan does is by the will of god.What is satan's job? He is sort of an imp of the perverse, to give bad choices to mankind. By having bad choices, that allows man to be able to make GOOD choices, and thereby lead a more sanctified life.More information about Satan, and his relationship to god and man can be found in the Jewish commentary about the book of Job at http://www.torah.org/learning/iyov/archives.html

You claim that dismissing 'spirituality' as a biological function is biasness, and for 'evidence' of that, you offer up a book written beween 2600 to 2000 years ago.So, we investigate how sight works, we investigate how touch , and smell work. Why must you insist that feeling spiritual is MORE than than? Why should we not investigate why there is spiritality, and how it functions? Because a book written 100 generations ago says we are born with it?

Edit...wrong verse...This message has been edited by Tal, 08-17-2005 09:09 AM

---

'Now isn't it amazing. I tell you that nobody made a simple toy like that (solar system model) and you don't believe me. Yet you gaze out into the solar System - the intricate marvelous machine that is around you - and you dare say to me that no one made that. I don't believe it'. -Sir Isaac Newton

Dismissing someone's spiritual experience as a hallucination would probably be bias (no need for the "-ness", "bias" is already a noun)if that is what happened. (Did somebody do this? It appears you hit "general reply" so it is hard to tell.) However, it is hard to deny that there is a psychological component to spirituality. And an intense spiritual experience could certainly feel like a hallucination to the person experiencing it. Was Job fasting during this time? I don't remember. Recall that Peter had his vision of the clean/unclean animals when he was waiting to eat - it is not farfetched to say that low blood sugar could have triggered the vision. A vision could be called a hallucination. The fact that there may be natural explanations doesn't make Peter's vision (or Job's experiences) any less of a spiritual experience - at least not to me.

Ramos, that doesn't stop Satan from trying to use the law to his own advantage. It gets a little complex, but the OT also talks of the angel answering Daniel's prayer being held up fighting with a principality opposing the angel getting through. Read the passage because it's pretty clear that there is a spiritual war going on, and note the angel is aware that as this principality of darkness is thrown down, a new one is going to take it's place.So your description is not quite right. It's a bit more nuanced than that.

It's not just merely a psychological function. That doesn't mean there isn't some biological aspect to it, in a sense, since the experience involves the total man.To delve into this though, we would have to discuss the evidence man has a spirit as well as a body, and that gets us off-topic. For me, it's a matter of biblical record and personal experience. I suspect there is nothing in science to contradict that view, but at the same time, I'm not waiting around for scientists to tell me how to worship God, believe Him, etc,..

I'd be interested in a thread like that, but I posted way too much last week and am maxed out. It's be a good topic for me in about a week or 2.

A righteous Buddhist monk or any righteous person is not condemned to hell.But if anyone rejects the sacrifice and gospel of Christ, he is no longer righteous because he is telling God that he is pure enough to not need such atonement. Let's say you were in debtors prison years ago, and it was an awful lot of money, and I paid for you to get out, except this costs me much more than money. I took your place in fact.Then, you get out and say, hey, I didn't need that. Rejecting the love and sacrifice of Jesus Christ is like spitting in God's face when he went to great lengths to ensure your forgiveness and blessing.The penalty for such a crime is great indeed, and justly so.Now, the only issue then is whether the Buddhist monk has a credible witness from God, either through a person, directly, writings, or what have you so that from God's perspective, the monk knowingly rejects Christ, or should have known if his heart was right, and thus reasoning pure enough to discern the truth.I do think a wicked man not seeking after truth is judged even if he unknowingly rejects Christ because had he been following after truth, he would have "heard".So no one can say the monk is going to hell. It doesn't work that way, but at the same time, rejecting Jesus Christ is a much more serious offense than you realize.

ow.yes, this is actually a major problem i've been having with my christian faith -- judaism makes sense to me. christianity makes sense to me. but placing christianity on top of judaism doesn't. they don't work too well together, and this is one of the BIG reasons. i don't have an answer.however, it should also be pointed out that jesus was pretty far from a sacrifice in the traditional sense. it certainly did not follow the levitical guidelines for the atonement of sins, did it?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 08-17-2005 04:36 PM

---

אָרַח

hey, ramoss. can you do me a favor and drop into this thread and tell eltonian james that? we're having a dispute about ezekiel 28. he seems to think it's about satan, even when it says flat-out it's about the prince of tyre. i've even mentioned what each bit is referring to, and why it can't be about satan.he then accuses me of having little understanding of the scripture, but is of course failing to rebut my actual points. it'd be nice if he could hear it from someone else too.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 08-17-2005 04:43 PM

---

אָרַח

well, there are evil spirits. no one's arguing that. god himself sends one at one point.fighting with the angels and fighting with god are two different things.

---

אָרַח

No, it most certainly did not follow the guildlines. Even if the rituals were proper (which they weren't), and you ignore the fact of it being the very much forbidden human sacrifice, there still is the issue of the imposition of someone else to take your sins. While it does mimic the old traditions scape goat and the sacrifical goat, rolled up into one, it gets away from the concept that people are responsible for their own sins, and of the proper atonement needed. In the Jewish religion it is an on going process, and part of it is a change in behavior.

OK, I'll keep an eye out.