If you expect us to take any f this as proof, please provide reference to these reports of this miracle.
i'm gonna interrupt this because it's getting stupid (on both sides).
you can't prove a miracle, you know it. miracles are by definition outside the realm of naturalism, and thus cannot be shown by any amount of evidence. it is therefor up to the person claiming it is not a miracle to provide evidence to the contrary -- if a natural explanation can be shown, it is NOT a miracle.
this is substantially different than, say, the loch ness monster. nessie, presumably, if she exists, is a real animal. so in the abscence of credible evidence the burden of proof lays on the person making the claim. they can reasonably go out, and capture nessie, and show that she does exist.
we can't do this with miracles -- all we CAN show is that something is not a miracle. the best we can do with a miracle to show that to the best of our knowledge something COULD be.
But when one makes the claim of a miracle I would expect there to be more reports, doctors records...if something medically miraculous happened I would expect corroborating reports of it happening. Without this it is only a subjective claim. Miracle it may be, but it is just heresay.
yes, SOMETHING would be nice. people who like to make extraordinary claims seem to like third-hand tales, fuzzy pictures, and shaky home videos.
Of course not metaphors. In that case the suffering was a test. Job was certainly a righteous man, but like everyone else he'd inherited the sin nature -- or no suffering could have touched him (the only perfectly righteous man was Jesus, who had to choose to suffer and die bearing the sins of others, because in Himself he couldn't die).
well, than job makes no sense. it's no test if job deserves his punishment.
also, i'm not sure that this jesus bit makes much sense either. how could suffering touch christ if he was born without original sin? and how could he die for our sins, if he couldn't die?
Happy New Year Arach.
I disagree with just about everything you write, but I hope it doesn't get personal.
i guess i missed this post before. going through old posts now that i can check my email. but, uh, belated happy new year to you too!
I think original sin makes all the suffering in the world understandable, and that without it there is no reasonable -- or acceptable -- explanation for it.
It also explains why Job could suffer and yet be a righteous man -- because nobody is perfectly righteous no matter how righteous. As I said already though. So I guess you're convinced or you're not.
i guess i'm not. because if job has any sin at all, he has no right to complain. he's getting what he deserves. job DOES have explanation of why bad things happen to good people, and it's not original sin. it's not particularly comforting in the way the book of job puts it, or a very good answer, but it's an answer nonetheless.
note also hat original sin isn't so much as mentioned anywhere in the book. that would have been a good explanation from god: "blame it on adam." but the idea isn't even there.
One has to read the Bible intelligently, not literal-mindedly looking for things to be said "in so many words.
well, yes, i agree with this statement. however, we can't just go quotemining for dogma and read whatever we want into it either.
in the case of job, original sin can only be inferred to NOT be in place. it would negate the premise of job being upright and not deserving the curses put upon him. the question of job is "why do bad things happen to good people?" and the answer doesn't appear to be quite that "there is no such thing as a good person."
job is blameless, and upright. perfect in everyway. the closest we get to original sin is the comparison between god and job -- next to god, job (perfect though he is) is nothing, and evil. but i think that's more a statement about GOD than it is about job.
Original sin is inferred from other parts of the Bible. The Bible is understood to be a consistent whole by my branch of Christianity. Therefore whatever is true for one book is true for all books. It does not have to be stated. Other parts of the Bible say clearly that there is NO one righteous, no not one.
right, sure. but it says that job *IS* righteous.
perhaps it's good to look at the whole of job, not just the first few sentances. job is perfect -- except when compared to god. maybe that's what paul meant. so perhaps job has some insight on romans, not the other way around.
Yes, God decreed his suffering at the request of the devil. This is the reason for his suffering. But it would not have been possible if Job were perfectly righteous.
it's more a matter of who's in charge. if you get in a fight with god, you're wrong whether or not you might have a point.