The trials of Job

[Par5]

"Yes"? My question wasn't rhetorical.

I didn't take it as being rhetorical, so what's your point?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

QUOTE="gaara4158, post: 73557726, member: 199778"]My judgment of God is not merely academic in nature. In recognition of God’s complete authority over all things, seeing the way he chooses to use that power, I deem him unworthy of praise or attention. You can say I don’t have the authority to judge him, but I will exercise what authority I do have (my control over my own decisions) in accordance with my disdain for the one who exercises his authority with disdain for me. You can say he would be just to punish me, but I stopped caring about what he thought was just when it became clear that human well-being wasn’t at the center of his moral foundation.[/QUOTE
================================
Someone in your past, who you believed, maybe who was very important to you, lied to you.
God is most concerned, more than anyone you ever knew or heard of,
with the well-being , care, and nurture of men.
His entire plan of Salvation (which means healing also) in Christ Jesus is
entirely gracious and generous beyond extravagant! All for you and me and all men who were once all His Enemies ! HE DIED FOR US !
To heal us.
To help us.
To save us.

when NO ONE ELSE CARED , when no one else ever could.

So, then, who lied to you , that you believed the lie ?

 

[Par5]

No, I'm not saying any of that ... but if that's how you want to 'see' it, then so be it. I can't make you think like an actual philosopher and become aware of your own false assumptions and fallacies. And since you persist in stereotyping my thoughts when you don't have a clue as to what they are, then it appears we can't even have a conversation.

I don't need to be a philosopher in order to know right from wrong. Life is not so difficult for me that I need to philosophize everything in order to get by. As for stereotyping your thoughts, not so, you already told me your thoughts. You may remember you told me that my morality is "built on a house of sand. No, make that: hot air!" And you talk about my false assumptions and fallacies?
There is nothing wrong with anyone taking an interest in philosophy, but I have been around the block enough times to recognize your attitude in presenting yourself as Mr Philosopher. Self-satisfied and smug!
If thinking like a philosopher is a prerequisite in order to evaluate and understand books of the bible, then I can say is that the vast majority of Christendom does not understand any of it!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't need to be a philosopher in order to know right from wrong. Life is not so difficult for me that I need to philosophize everything in order to get by. As for stereotyping your thoughts, not so, you already told me your thoughts. You may remember you told me that my morality is "built on a house of sand. No, make that: hot air!" And you talk about my false assumptions and fallacies?
There is nothing wrong with anyone taking an interest in philosophy, but I have been around the block enough times to recognize your attitude in presenting yourself as Mr Philosopher. Self-satisfied and smug!
If thinking like a philosopher is a prerequisite in order to evaluate and understand books of the bible, then I can say is that the vast majority of Christendom does not understand any of it!

Well then, if you so easily "know" right from wrong, and you think you can explicate all of this obvious knowledge that you have, please enlighten the rest of us in just exactly how we all can "know" what is right and wrong ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You know, I'm not really sure what you are in terms of this question.

Once I figure out what your stance is, I'll let you know whether or not I think it's vulnerable to the Euthyphro.

On second thought, I'm thinking that the Euthyphro has to be shown that it is cogent in and of itself as a method of critique to be applied to a metaphysics that is wholly different from that of the Greeks (by which I mean, of course, the Biblical, Jewish metaphysical framework).

In other words, its my assertion that Plato's Socratic argument in Euthyphro relies upon a critique geared toward and directed solely at a polytheistic metaphysical essence and is not applicable to the Jewish, biblical essence

So, whether or not I even subscribe to the Divine Command Theory is a side-issue and has no bearing upon whether the Euthyphro argument can be fully or even partially applied to the biblical metaphysical framework. In my view, it can't for the simple reason that the Bible posits One God first, rather than many gods, second to the axioms of 'being.' Because the biblical metaphysical framework inverts and turns the former paganistic polytheism of the Gentile nations on its head, the Euthyrphro argument fails to apply.

Thus, by constant allusion to the Bugs Bunny Matador motif wherein he stops the dichtomous horns of the Bull with the presentation of a ... Singular Anvil.

 

[zippy2006]

I didn't take it as being rhetorical, so what's your point?

My point is that if you want to engage that post then you should answer the question, for the whole post is a simple question. As is you didn't answer the question at all, you just continued your criticisms from the OP.

It's like if I ask someone, "Who won the basketball game last night?" and they give me a long story about how they are frustrated with their girlfriend. I have no doubt that they are frustrated with their girlfriend, but that has nothing to do with the question I asked. No conversation has taken place.

 

[Silmarien]

On second thought, I'm thinking that the Euthyphro has to be shown that it is cogent in and of itself as a method of critique to be applied to a metaphysics that is wholly different from that of the Greeks (by which I mean, of course, the Biblical, Jewish metaphysical framework).

In other words, its my assertion that Plato's Socratic argument in Euthyphro relies upon a critique geared toward and directed solely at a polytheistic metaphysical essence and is not applicable to the Jewish, biblical essence

So, whether or not I even subscribe to the Divine Command Theory is a side-issue and has no bearing upon whether the Euthyphro argument can be fully or even partially applied to the biblical metaphysical framework. In my view, it can't for the simple reason that the Bible posits One God first, rather than many gods, second to the axioms of 'being.' Because the biblical metaphysical framework inverts and turns the former paganistic polytheism of the Gentile nations on its head, the Euthyrphro argument fails to apply.

Thus, by constant allusion to the Bugs Bunny Matador motif wherein he stops the dichtomous horns of the Bull with the presentation of a ... Singular Anvil.

I would say that certain aspects of the Euthyphro fail to apply, since one of the problems with divine command theory in a polytheistic setting is that different gods are commanding different things. If virtue is that which the gods like, and the gods have preferences that are at times mutually exclusive, then virtue becomes a paradox. This aspect of the Euthyphro, I agree, doesn't apply to any form of monotheism.

But the question of whether something is good because God commands it, or whether God commands it because it is good remains. There's no overwhelming logical problem in saying that if God commanded the ritual sacrifice of firstborn children, then it would be by definition good to do so, but I think some of the deep problems associated with an Ockham style voluntarism show up here. We have no reason not to believe that reneging upon all of his promises and eradicating all of his saints is something that could become good, if God chose to declare it so. If something is good merely because God commands it, then God's decisions about what is and is not good can change, and we are looking at a situation fairly similar to the pagan one, where contradictory things can be good or bad depending upon God's whim. We end up with a very absurd and changeable picture of what morality is and is not, and one that destroys the very notion of divine providence.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Well then, if you so easily "know" right from wrong, and you think you can explicate all of this obvious knowledge that you have, please enlighten the rest of us in just exactly how we all can "know" what is right and wrong ...

Instead,
seek the truth in Scripture, how do, and how can little children know what is right and wrong?

Why do adults have so much trouble with this every day ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What is "wrong" is making stuff up.

From this page/thread/ I went directly to a tab with this post on it ....
seems very pertinent ... to the topic at hand,
or at least the last question ....

 

[Par5]

My point is that if you want to engage that post then you should answer the question, for the whole post is a simple question. As is you didn't answer the question at all, you just continued your criticisms from the OP.

It's like if I ask someone, "Who won the basketball game last night?" and they give me a long story about how they are frustrated with their girlfriend. I have no doubt that they are frustrated with their girlfriend, but that has nothing to do with the question I asked. No conversation has taken place.

If you actually read the post in question I did provide an answer. You asked what the author of Job was trying to communicate and I responded that I understood the message to be that some people believe that when they experience bad things that god is punishing them unfairly when god has no hand in what is happening to them at all, that bad things happen to the best of people.
Whether or not you agree with my understanding of the reason for Job's trials is immaterial, but you saying I did not answer your question is incorrect.

 

[Par5]

Well then, if you so easily "know" right from wrong, and you think you can explicate all of this obvious knowledge that you have, please enlighten the rest of us in just exactly how we all can "know" what is right and wrong ...

I take it you are a mature adult and at this stage of your life if you are having difficulty understanding right from wrong, then I'm afraid there is not much I can do or say that will help you.

 

[zippy2006]

If you actually read the post in question I did provide an answer. You asked what the author of Job was trying to communicate and I responded that I understood the message to be that some people believe that when they experience bad things that god is punishing them unfairly when god has no hand in what is happening to them at all, that bad things happen to the best of people.
Whether or not you agree with my understanding of the reason for Job's trials is immaterial, but you saying I did not answer your question is incorrect.

I think the story only has meaning for those who believe in a god that inflicts punishment on those it deems as having committed a misdemeanour. The meaning being that although god does at times punish people there are times when people may feel that god is punishing them unfairly when god has no hand in it at all.

Okay, thanks. Sorry, perhaps I overlooked that. You did include something of an answer.

So here is a question for you: where in the text do you find the idea that "god (sic) has no hand in it at all"?

For someone who has no belief in a god the story is redundant. Good things and bad things happen to good people and bad people in equal number. There is no finger pointing at some deity because you experience bad things and no thumbs up to a diety when you experience the good things. You simply enjoy the good and do your best to deal with the bad.

Sure... If the story is only saying that good things and bad things happen to good people and bad people in equal number then it would probably provide no additional insight to a nonbeliever. I certainly don't think the author of Job was engaging atheists in apologetics.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If you actually read the post in question I did provide an answer. You asked what the author of Job was trying to communicate and I responded that I understood the message to be that some people believe that when they experience bad things that god is punishing them unfairly when god has no hand in what is happening to them at all, that bad things happen to the best of people.
Whether or not you agree with my understanding of the reason for Job's trials is immaterial, but you saying I did not answer your question is incorrect.

In the Book of Job, it is written

not that God set back and had nothing to do with it, no,

it is written in the Book of Job that God had a lot to do with it,

so the Author of the Book of Job clearly knew and wrote that God had a lot to do with it.

How could you believe you understand the message ? And then ignore what is written in the Book of Job that is very clearly and without ambiguity stated ?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I would say that certain aspects of the Euthyphro fail to apply, since one of the problems with divine command theory in a polytheistic setting is that different gods are commanding different things. If virtue is that which the gods like, and the gods have preferences that are at times mutually exclusive, then virtue becomes a paradox. This aspect of the Euthyphro, I agree, doesn't apply to any form of monotheism.

But the question of whether something is good because God commands it, or whether God commands it because it is good remains. There's no overwhelming logical problem in saying that if God commanded the ritual sacrifice of firstborn children, then it would be by definition good to do so, but I think some of the deep problems associated with an Ockham style voluntarism show up here. We have no reason not to believe that reneging upon all of his promises and eradicating all of his saints is something that could become good, if God chose to declare it so. If something is good merely because God commands it, then God's decisions about what is and is not good can change, and we are looking at a situation fairly similar to the pagan one, where contradictory things can be good or bad depending upon God's whim. We end up with a very absurd and changeable picture of what morality is and is not, and one that destroys the very notion of divine providence.

Upon consideration of the first paragraph you've written above, if it's true, and I think it is, then I also think the need for the second paragraph becomes superfluous. And since the context of this particular forum is Christian Apologetics, and that only, we can all realize that we are dealing with an obvious firm form of Monotheism upon which the Argument of Plato (Socrates) in Euthryphro doesn't apply. What we end up with then when we contemplate all of the hypothetical scenarios which in our moral imaginations we may dream up is a moot argument from Plato's Socrates. (Not that I don't agree with you on a philosophical level IF we're talking about morality in the context of a pagan, polytheistic, even ancient Greek context, but here, we're obviously not and we're only referring to a Biblical theology.)

From my experience, the only ones who question the God of the Bible are those who have already presupposed its falsity, but as Christians, we don't have to question the Hebrew God and His commands and whether the commands that are actually and unchagneably within the biblical text are indeed "good" IF we presuppose the essential Metaphysics of the Bible. So, I think this whole conversation needs to instead boil down to each of us admitting "why" we even suspect the God of the Bible in the first place. Furthermore, my contention is that the philosophy of some philosophical moral works, like the Declaration of Universal Human Rights, among other forms of Modern moral articulation, don't have enough coherence or even basic, axiomatic substance to cause ANYONE to really question the God of the Bible. If they do decide to "question" the God of the Bible, it's because, and usually solely because, they don't question the inherent moral propositions of their own ethical viewpoint and push their assumptions as some kind of supreme (and supposedly obvious) "moral truths." This allegation I am tossing out is seen clearly here in this forum when those who are skeptics and atheists utterly refuse to explain their own moral viewpoints but rather claim a counter axiomatic position that............................................doesn't actually exist in anything other than a purely pragmatic expression (such as is often trotted out with the term "well-being.") And that, while useful, doesn't equate to any kind of Supreme Truth by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I take it you are a mature adult and at this stage of your life if you are having difficulty understanding right from wrong, then I'm afraid there is not much I can do or say that will help you.

I never claimed I'm indeed having difficulty in this area. Having a degree in Philosophy, which heavily focused upon surveying and analyzing the various ethical positions of Social Philosophy that exist, has for the most part prevented me from feeling too much difficulty in this area ........

 

[Silmarien]

Upon consideration of the first paragraph you've written above, if it's true, and I think it is, then I also think the need for the second paragraph becomes superfluous.

Why is the second paragraph superfluous? It has absolutely nothing to do with polytheism.

From my experience, the only ones who question the God of the Bible are those who have already presupposed its falsity, but as Christians, we don't have to question the Hebrew God and His commands and whether the commands that are actually and unchagneably within the biblical text are indeed "good" IF we presuppose the essential Metaphysics of the Bible. So, I think this whole conversation needs to instead boil down to each of us admitting "why" we even suspect the God of the Bible in the first place. Furthermore, my contention is that the philosophy of some philosophical moral works, like the Declaration of Universal Human Rights, among other forms of Modern moral articulation, don't have enough coherence or even basic, axiomatic substance to cause ANYONE to really question the God of the Bible. If they do decide to "question" the God of the Bible, it's because, and usually solely because, they don't question the inherent moral propositions of their own ethical viewpoint and push their assumptions as some kind of supreme (and supposedly obvious) "moral truths." This allegation I am tossing out is seen clearly here in this forum when those who are skeptics and atheists utterly refuse to explain their own moral viewpoints but rather claim a counter axiomatic position that............................................doesn't actually exist in anything other than a purely pragmatic expression (such as is often trotted out with the term "well-being.") And that, while useful, doesn't equate to any kind of Supreme Truth by any stretch of the imagination.

I am going to have to side with the skeptics on this one. If we can question the God of the Koran or even Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita on moral grounds--and I think in both cases we can and probably should--then I see no reason why the God of the Bible ought to be off limits.

Whether the Bible itself presents a coherent moral framework is a pretty serious question. You can find ultra-conservative Jews out there who still argue in favor of theocracies and stoning people who break Torah law. And if we reduce morality to what shows up in the Torah and say that nobody else has a coherent moral system, then they have good reason to claim that it is perfectly correct to execute anyone who flips a light switch on a Saturday.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why is the second paragraph superfluous? It has absolutely nothing to do with polytheism.

...because if a particular ethical complex is dependent upon a metaphysical truth, then if that metaphysical proposition is true, this provides for the substance of the ethical framework that rides upon it or emerges from it. In this case, the Euthyphro dilemma only comes about because Plato's Socrates is able to essentially 'divide' the metaphysical structure of the ethical essence he is analyzing. And he is able to do this because the metaphysics he works with involves multiple gods who 'disagree' with each other. In the biblical context, there is no such division, at all. So, the 'goodness' of God, and thereby His commands and His plans stand or fall on the metaphysical essence of His nature since there is no further division to set up against His nature; in biblical theology, there is no Platonic essence that sits 'beside' God or is ever above Him.

If were simply adapting the Euthyphro to Modernistic notions of analysis, then we are not longer really even using Plato's Socrates and we need to stop even naming the whole debate that several, or dozens, of us here on CF are undertaking as somehow being an application of Euthyphro......its a misnomer if we're thinking we can actually apply it to the God of the bible.

I am going to have to side with the skeptics on this one. If we can question the God of the Koran or even Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita on moral grounds--and I think in both cases we can and probably should--then I see no reason why the God of the Bible ought to be off limits.

No, you really can't question any of them; all we CAN do is question their metaphysical properties and surmise through our evaluations as to whether or not we think they are real. If, for instance, it seems that the Koran is the closest proposition that reflects the structure of the divine reality, then we are then subject to a reality that insist we learn the ethical structure that 'god' has laid out for humanity in the Koran.

Whether the Bible itself presents a coherent moral framework is a pretty serious question. You can find ultra-conservative Jews out there who still argue in favor of theocracies and stoning people who break Torah law. And if we reduce morality to what shows up in the Torah and say that nobody else has a coherent moral system, then they have good reason to claim that it is perfectly correct to execute anyone who flips a light switch on a Saturday.

Sure. But ......................for you or anyone else to "question" the, to do so is to ONLY do so from a non-neutral position of presupposed ethical veracity, such as might be subscribed to by an atheist who think, say, Utilitarianism is surpremely true. Otherwise, if a person simply makes moral askance of the bible but can't even define and explain the basic structure of an ethical system apart from a metaphysics that makes it substantive, then that person seems to be disengenous and skirting the full set of issues involved on only in challenging the moral truths of the bible, but also of those pertaining to his or her own supposed ethical truths.

In other words, one has to have a solid 'position' of ethical substance of one's own in order to qualify to criticize or make askance of what we find in the bible. ................the upshot is that this goes for Christians as well, which is why Christian apologetics is needed and even Christian philosophy. If a person simply 'claims' to have morality but can't explain and provide support as to why his/her supposed moral stance is indeed substantive---it can't just be a "just so" situation----then his or her asking about whether some god's commands are good because they are commanded or because they are good in and of themselves, falls apart.

 

[Silmarien]

...because if a particular ethical complex is dependent upon a metaphysical truth, then if that metaphysical proposition is true, this provides for the substance of the ethical framework that rides upon it or emerges from it. In this case, the Euthyphro dilemma only comes about because Plato's Socrates is able to essentially 'divide' the metaphysical structure of the ethical essence he is analyzing. And he is able to do this because the metaphysics he works with involves multiple gods who 'disagree' with each other. In the biblical context, there is no such division, at all. So, the 'goodness' of God, and thereby His commands and His plans stand or fall on the metaphysical essence of His nature since there is no further division to set up against His nature; in biblical theology, there is no Platonic essence that sits 'beside' God or is ever above Him.

I disagree with you that the Euthyphro Dilemma is fully dependent upon that particular metaphysical system. My second paragraph was very explicitly directed at monotheism instead, so I'm still not sure why you think it's superfluous. I can absolutely leverage the Euthyphro in defense of theistic Platonism over a different metaethical position like divine command theory.

No, you really can't question any of them; all we CAN do is question their metaphysical properties and surmise through our evaluations as to whether or not we think they are real. If, for instance, it seems that the Koran is the closest proposition that reflects the structure of the divine reality, then we are then subject to a reality that insist we learn the ethical structure that 'god' has laid out for humanity in the Koran.

We can question their metaethical properties as well and ask whether the ethical structure laid out in any given book has any basis in reality. I don't see how we can separate the moral question from determining which proposition most closely reflects divine reality--that is one of the ways we can distinguish between what reflects human foibles and what doesn't.

I think you're getting disturbingly close to moral subjectivism yourself here, since if I understand you correctly, you're refusing to independently form a basis for morality at all.

 

[zippy2006]

If virtue is that which the gods like, and the gods have preferences that are at times mutually exclusive, then virtue becomes a paradox.

It is perhaps worth noting that the Euthyphro does go beyond this strictly polytheistic argument when the definition of piety is amended to be that which is loved by all the gods.

Of course the fact of the matter when it comes to Euthyphro or Job is that many who are referencing these texts have not actually read them. They are therefore working from a kind of popular interpretation of the text. What is known as the Euthyphro dilemma in popular contemporary philosophical discourse is directed towards contemporary metaphysical frameworks. It would be interesting to investigate to what extent the popular account coheres with Plato's dialogue, but that strikes me as a somewhat tangential academic question.

In other words, one has to have a solid 'position' of ethical substance of one's own in order to qualify to criticize or make askance of what we find in the bible.

On the one hand it is true that one ought to make objections from a consistent and well-founded systematic understanding of their own. On the other hand it takes time and effort to build up such a systematic understanding, and spontaneous critiques are one way that one develops their own understanding into something which is more comprehensive. So if you have a hostile troll performing hit-and-runs there is a problem of intellectual integrity, but if you have an uneducated person making honest critiques without understanding the systematic implications this is just the natural way for them to get their feet wet.

 

[Hawkins]

God's servants all may have to work under Job's circumstance. Job asked why but God only answers that He has a higher thought over humans'. It means God has a purpose which humans may not be able to comprehend at the moment of the suffering.

A typical example is the 12 disciples of Jesus, 10 of them were "arranged" to be martyred.

John 21:19-22 (NIV2011)
Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”
Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”)
When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”
Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”

Apparently at the time when Jesus asked Peter to martyr, Peter is clueless about the purpose of his and others' martyrdom.

Martyrdom under the circumstance is a crucial part of an unknown process which is the process of human witnessing. Humans seldom know what human witnessing is. To put it short, one of the most efficient way for humans to back up a testimony in today's world is to record with videos or audios. In ancient world however the most efficient way in backing a crucial testimony is by the eyewitnesses martyring themselves for what have been witnessed.

The 10s are thus the Jobs suffered without know why but as a necessary part for God to convey the message of salvation throughout human kind by means of human witnessing.

To Satan, killing them may stop the gospel from spreading. To God the opposite is true, killing them will make the gospel spread. It's more like a betting between God and Satan. This is actually the way how Satan was defeated because the result leaned towards what have been planned by God.

The 10 are sacrificed in terms of martyrdom, however salvation is brought to human kind along with their death.

John 12:24 (NIV2011)
Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.