Theism's Perversion of Basic Terms

Originally posted by KellyJay
People go through hardships all the time, you think all of those are worthless
and senseless? What are the important things in this life, keep in mind at this
time everyone (people) in Job story are now death including Job. So when
looking at everyone's life on the whole does that make everyone who died
not so important, all the things they went through ...[text shortened]... re of what is important in
our lives and where did you go to get your views about this?
Kelly

You are not quoting me here so I am not sure I need to answer. I could interpret your statement as meaning that suffering which does not serve a purpose is therefore senseless, but that would not make it unimportant, either to the person suffering or to anyone with empathy, so no, you make no sense to me.

The laugh of it is that the Book of Job rehearses precisely the things I am saying. I have been checking a few sources and as Wikipedia was the last on the list that is on my screen to copy and paste as follows:

Speeches of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar

Job's friends do not waver from their belief that Job must have sinned to incite God's punishment. As the speeches progress, Job's friends increasingly berate him for refusing to confess his sins, although they themselves are at a loss as to which sin he has committed. They also assume, in their view of theology, that God always rewards good and punishes evil, with no apparent exceptions allowed. There seems to be no room in their understanding of God for divine discretion and mystery in allowing and arranging suffering for purposes other than retribution.
Speeches of Job

Job, confident of his own innocence, maintains that his suffering is unjustified as he has not sinned, and that there is no reason for God to punish him thus. However, he does not curse God's name or accuse God of injustice but rather seeks an explanation or an account of his wrongdoing.
Speech of Elihu

Elihu takes a mediator's path—he attempts to maintain the sovereignty and righteousness and gracious mercy of God. Elihu's speech comes after the final words of Job in the third speech cycle (31:40) and goes from chapters 32-37.[6] Elihu strongly condemns the approach taken by the three friends, and argues that Job is misrepresenting God's righteousness and discrediting his loving character. Elihu says he spoke last because he is much younger than the other three friends, but says that age makes no difference when it comes to insights and wisdom. In his speech, Elihu argues for God's power, redemptive salvation, and absolute rightness in all his conduct. God is mighty, yet just, and quick to warn and to forgive. Elihu's speeches act as a narrative bridge which joins Job's summary of his case with the appearance of God.[8] His speech maintains that Job, while righteous, is not perfect. Job does not disagree with this and God does not rebuke Elihu as he does Bildad, Zophar, and Eliphaz.[9] After Elihu's speech ends with the last verse of Chapter 37, God appears and in the second verse of Chapter 38, God says, speaking of Job: “Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?"
God's response

After several rounds of debate between Job and his friends, in a divine voice, described as coming from a "cloud" or "whirlwind", God describes, in evocative and lyrical language, what the experience of being the creator of the world is like, and rhetorically asks if Job has ever had the experiences or the authority that God has had. God's answer underscores that Job shares the world with numerous powerful and remarkable creatures. (Also compare Job 41:18-21 with Job 15:12-13 which was possibly in response to Job 7:11-16).

God's speech also emphasizes his sovereignty in creating and maintaining the world. The thrust is not merely that God has experiences that Job does not, but that God is king over the world and is not necessarily subject to questions from his creatures, including men. The point of these speeches is to proclaim the absolute freedom of God over His creation. God is not in need of the approval of his creation. It is only the reader of the book who learns of God's conversations with Satan; Job himself remains unaware of the reason or source of his sufferings. The traditional interpretation is that, humbled by God's chastising, Job turns speechless, giving up and repenting his previous requests of justice. However, another interpretation is that Job's silence is defiant, and that what he gives up is not his belief that justice be done, but his confidence that God will behave justly.[10]

In the epilogue, God condemns Job's friends for their ignorance and lack of understanding while commending Job for his righteous words, commands them to prepare burnt offerings and reassures them that Job will pray for their forgiveness. Job is restored to health, gaining double the riches he possessed before and having new children, 7 sons and 3 daughters (his wife did not die in this ordeal). His new daughters (Jemima, Keziah and Keren-Happuch[11]) were the most beautiful in the land, and were given inheritance along with their brothers. Job is blessed once again and lives on another 140 years after the ordeal, living to see his children to the fourth generation and dying peacefully of old age.

Your arguments seemed to me to rank with the first three friends in this account. Sorry mate.

Originally posted by finnegan
You are not quoting me here so I am not sure I need to answer. I could interpret your statement as meaning that suffering which does not serve a purpose is therefore senseless, but that would not make it unimportant, either to the person suffering or to anyone with empathy, so no, you make no sense to me.

The laugh of it is that the Book of Job rehears d to me to rank with the first three friends in this account. Sorry mate.

At least answer my questions before you run off and state someone else's point
of view, your point of view would be nice if you can come up with one on your own.
What are the important things in this life? If you can answer me without going to
another site that would be even better as I promise you my answers will be from
me not some site that tells me how to respond or what I should think about this,
that, or the other thing.

You called what happened in Job senseless, I'd like to know from YOU what are
the important things, what makes our lives important and is it possible that what
happens here has an effect on our lives after we pass from this life to the next?

Here is hoping you have a mind of your own.
Kelly

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
these assertions are so biased its hard to know where to start.

Let it be stated that mankind sought independence from God and brought the
horrendous effects of this moral independence upon themselves, that God provided
a provision , in the form of Christ to propitiate for that error is a kindness, if you
reject the provision then once aga ...[text shortened]... ny passages of Gods
benevolence when persons were repentant and truly sorry for their actions.

Let it be stated that mankind sought independence from God and brought the
horrendous effects of this moral independence upon themselves

This line of thought has at least two major problems.

Here's an outline of the first problem. If you look back at the opening post, I mentioned that it is difficult to understand what theists mean by love when their claim that God is loving has to be read as consistent with all the various evils that exist. This would include phenomena that are commonly referred to as "natural" evils and very unfortunate articles of the "natural lottery", such as climatic disasters, diseases of various types, earthquakes, etc, etc. These are all very unfortunate things that God could of course simply prevent, given His supposed attributes. It is patently absurd for one to make the claim that humans have brought such things upon themselves. These types of "horrendous effects" can have nothing reasonably to do with the subject of our freedom of will. So, what you bring up here is powerless to actually address this part of my inquiry.

Here's the second problem. Again, if you look back at my opening post, I mentioned that it is difficult to understand what theists mean by love when their claim that God is loving has to be read as consistent with the bevy of atrocities that He has wreaked upon all forms of His creatures, as detailed in the theist's own divine accounts (assuming this theist has a sufficiently literal interpretation of such scriptures). As has already been discussed in this thread, this includes examples of His sanctioning genocide and infanticide, His drowning all nearly all creation, etc, etc. These are heinous things. I find it hilarious that you would think it follows that God would be justified to visit such things on His creatures merely because they strove to be morally independent. You'll need to flesh that out a bit more for me take that seriously.

I'll throw in a third problem for good measure. Your reply here brings up another bizarro-concept that theists often employ. I'm not sure how best to formally state this bizarro-notion but it is, roughly, the idea that a just and loving God would visit punishment, suffering, pain, etc, on a person in response to actions of this person's forbears. What an absurd notion!

that God provided
a provision , in the form of Christ to propitiate for that error is a kindness

I have already addressed this topic. Like I said to Suzianne, this is bizarro-salvation, grounded in the bizarro doctrine of the scapegoat. Please see my post to Suzianne on Page 4 that already addresses this.

if you
reject the provision then once again, it is not because God has subjected the
creation to futility, but that it was brought about not by Gods will, but by mans

If one chooses to reject your bizarro notion of salvation, then, sure, he can take responsibility for that decision. You're not actually addressing my inquiry in any way. My inquiry is in regards to how we are to make sense of what the theist means by terms like 'loving' and 'just' when his predicating them unto God has to be read as consistent with all that we can gather about the actions and evaluative commitments of God from what the theist knows about the world and what is contained in his own accounts of God; while at the same time being true to our everyday basic intuitions and understanding of how such terms function normally. For example, how are we to make sense of the fact that the theist calls God loving and just, while at the same time the theist's own accounts of God show Him as jealous, petty, vindictive, and prone to things like genocide, infanticide, and other forms of mass killings? For another example, how are we to make sense of the fact that the theist calls God loving and just, while at the same time this theist is aware of various types of gratuitous natural evils that exist (such as described above) and the fact that God supposedly has the power, knowledge, opportunity, etc to simply prevent such things? These are the types of questions relevant to my inquiry, and I fail to see how you are addressing any of them.

As for the perversion of terms, lets take, just by way of example, your first one,
love.

Again, you're not actually addressing the inquiry I outlined. Whether or not the bible offers descriptions of love is not the issue. Here's my challenge to you. Find some specific passages from your book that you think offer the clearest insights into the true nature of love. Then explain (provide some actual reasons) why anyone should think that such descriptions are consistent with things like the sanctioning of genocide or infanticide; or bringing about the drowning deaths of nearly all sentient beings; or the characteristic failure of an agent to prevent instances of widespread suffering when he has the power, knowledge, opportunity to do so, etc.

There is as far as I am aware, no doctrine of eternal punishment in the Bible, in that
God tortures conscious persons for an eternity in some Hell like environment. This
is not a perversion of the term love, its an extra Biblical doctrine once again
borrowed from the Greeks, whose worst offenders were destined to suffer
punishments. The concept is entirely incongruous with the concept of a loving God.

Well, a lot of theists do not agree with you that it is extra-biblical. But, I would have to say that kudos go to you for understanding the incongruity you mention. I do have to applaud your for that.

That Gods love should also be tempered with justice is also not a perversion of the
term,

Sanctioning genocide, infanticide, and the like are not examples of justice. They're examples of bizarro-justice.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"As far as I can tell, you are just contradicting yourself here. You say on one hand that God sets the time for all deaths. You say on the other hand that persons other than God set the time for some deaths to something other than what God wants by carrying out acts of free will that contravene God's will. This was the contradiction that I already alluded t ...[text shortened]... to choose being in place is very messy indeed,
but the mess is getting cleaned up.
Kelly

You're right. Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought that by saying God "sets" the time of all deaths, you meant that he determines the time of all deaths. This claim is what brings about contradiction when conjoined with the claim that other agents besides God determine the time of some deaths through their own actions. But you didn't mean "sets" in that way.

So, you're right: there's no contradiction here.

However, I really don't understand how all this is relevant to my inquiry outlined in the opening post. And I think it is very misleading of you to imply that God merely "sets" death in this sense. According to the biblical accounts that you take literally, He took many direct actions to bring suffering and death about, such as the examples of genocide, infanticide, and mass killings. I'm asking how such actions are consistent with love and justice.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"God's actions under discussion here (those of sanctioning genocide, infanticide, and the like) are not actions that we do not understand at all or do not have a clue about. On the contrary, they are actions that we all know to be clearly morally wrong!!! That you keep on just ignoring this huge elephant in the room is what makes this all so bizarre. "

[ ...[text shortened]... as not really the
one saying it, well than as you point out it is evil to the core.
Kelly

Right, and this is why your views are so painfully bizarre! Somehow, according to you, if Hitler sanctions genocide then you would call the act "evil to the core" without so much as a second thought; but if God were to sanction the same act of genocide, you would call it consistent with love and justice.

Could you explain how the same action could be both evil to the core and yet consistent with love and justice?

Originally posted by LemonJello
You're right. Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought that by saying God "sets" the time of all deaths, you meant that he determines the time of all deaths. This claim is what brings about contradiction when conjoined with the claim that other agents besides God determine the time of some deaths through their own actions. But you didn't mean "sets" in that nd mass killings. I'm asking how such actions are consistent with love and justice.

Well for one thing, this life isn't the end all be all of all there is for us. As such the
'rewards' or however you want to describe the good things for us are not always
something we are going to see in the here and now. If you look at many of the OT
and NT people that really did please God, their lives were not always rainbows and
happy faces! The fact that people suffer does not mean that God is displeased with
them any more than being pain free mean that God is pleased. The Peace of God
isn't something that the world gives so it cannot take it away from us not matter
what comes our way good or bad.

Love and Justice if you are not careful looking at this life would seem that God does
favor the wicked since they seem to be on top a lot. When our lives become an
open book on judgment day than we can see how justice is dealt out, until then
love and evil are being worked out in this life and we see them for what they are.

The judgment is coming and when it does, all doubt and confusion will be gone and
evil will be shown for what it is as will mercy.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
Right, and this is why your views are so painfully bizarre! Somehow, according to you, if Hitler sanctions genocide then you would call the act "evil to the core" without so much as a second thought; but if God were to sanction the same act of genocide, you would call it consistent with love and justice.

Could you explain how the same action could be both evil to the core and yet consistent with love and justice?

Did Hitler create life? Did Hitler set the stars in place? Did Hitler set the boundries
we see all around us, or was Hitler murdering people for his own selfish means?
You are comparing God to man and since man cannot do something you want to
imply God should not. I believe its apples and oranges.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
I'll throw in a third problem for good measure. Your reply here brings up another bizarro-concept that theists often employ. I'm not sure how best to formally state this bizarro-notion but it is, roughly, the idea that a just and loving God would visit punishment, suffering, pain, etc, on a person in response to actions of this person's forbears. What an absurd notion!

How about:

bizarro-culpability

The idea that you are liable for the actions of others, despite your exerting no influence on said others. This holds even for actions that happened before you were born.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Did Hitler create life? Did Hitler set the stars in place? Did Hitler set the boundries
we see all around us, or was Hitler murdering people for his own selfish means?
You are comparing God to man and since man cannot do something you want to
imply God should not. I believe its apples and oranges.
Kelly

or was Hitler murdering people for his own selfish means?

You must be forgetting that, on your view, one's reasons and motivations for acting are explanatorily impotent regarding moral (in)correctness. Remember, under your view God has the right to do whatever to His creation for any reason whatever.

So, let's do a thought experiment. I preface this by stating that this is just a hypothetical, which is designed to probe the implications and scope of your view. I repeat, it is a hypothetical: I am not claiming anything here about how God acts or will act or about what in fact motivates His actions. I am merely trying to point out what I think is a flaw in your view. So, let's suppose you have Hitler on one hand and God on the other. Suppose that Hitler decides to line up a bunch of Jewish people and execute them because he is bored and thinks it will be fun. Suppose that God also decides to line up a bunch of Jewish people and execute them because He is bored and thinks it will be fun. This is not apples versus oranges. This is McIntosh apple versus McIntosh apple. They are identical actions with the same act carried out under the same motivators. But, under your view, one McIntosh apple is "evil to the core" (no pun intended there) whereas the other identical McIntosh apple is consistent with perfect justice and love. 🙄

Originally posted by SwissGambit
How about:

bizarro-culpability

The idea that [b]you are liable for the actions of others, despite your exerting no influence on said others. This holds even for actions that happened before you were born.[/b]

Yes! Very good rendering. Thanks. 🙂

Originally posted by KellyJay
At least answer my questions before you run off and state someone else's point
of view, your point of view would be nice if you can come up with one on your own.
What are the important things in this life? If you can answer me without going to
another site that would be even better as I promise you my answers will be from
me not some site that tells me fter we pass from this life to the next?

Here is hoping you have a mind of your own.
Kelly

If you can answer me without going to another site that would be even better as I promise you my answers will be from me not some site that tells me how to respond or what I should think about this, that, or the other thing.

The other site to which you refer was giving a neat summary of the relevant points in the Book of Job, so in effect you are asking me not to refer to the Bible as a source when arguing about the Bible. Obviously there are people who think it is not adequate to rely on the Bible for your opinions and I don't rely on it at all other than to demonstrate something said in the Bible which happens to be the topic I am debating with you. Taking the actual text of the Book of Job would require more space but logically, I have done the next best thing to assist the debate, not to supply my opinion.

You called what happened in Job senseless,..

I think it would be useful when you argue about the Book of Job if you are more confident about what it actually says, which in this case is that your sunday school morality - God only punishes the sinner and rewards the virtuous - is wrong. According to the Bible - in Job - God is not required to be just and refuses to be judged by humans against such criteria. He made the World and can do what He decides without our approval.

In addition, you will remind yourself that although Job is unaware of this, and thinks his suffering was unjust and meaningless, in fact it was imposed to prove a point with Satan, which hardly improves matters and probably makes them worse. That's what Job tells us and it is a key book of the Bible so hard to argue against I imagine. So it was not a useful lesson for mankind, a necessary trial, anything of that sort. Nor was it an accident, nothing to do with God, not his fault. It was a bet between God and Satan and when you sup with the Devil what do you get? Compensating Job later, by giving him ten new children to make up for the ten lost ones, does not alter this or make it okay.

As for listing off what I think is important in life, clearly, I have learned from Job that my children are not important, as long as I can get some more somewhere. Maybe my wife is important though as long as she can have more. Looks like I am left with chess. That's important.

Originally posted by finnegan

If you can answer me without going to another site that would be even better as I promise you my answers will be from me not some site that tells me how to respond or what I should think about this, that, or the other thing.

The other site to which you refer was giving a neat summary of the relevant points in the Book of Job, so in effect ...[text shortened]... rtant though as long as she can have more. Looks like I am left with chess. That's important.

I'm asking you to give me your insight, not a web sites on the book of Job.
If I wanted to know what the the web site thought about the book of Job I would
not ask you for that information. It would be real handy if you gave me your
views on what your issues with the book of Job are, again if your mind is a blank
and I have to go to a web site to see what the web site has to say, I don't need
you for that. With respect to my views, you'll get them not some Sunday school
teachers views on the scripture when you give me your reasons for your senseless
statement.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]or was Hitler murdering people for his own selfish means?

You must be forgetting that, on your view, one's reasons and motivations for acting are explanatorily impotent regarding moral (in)correctness. Remember, under your view God has the right to do whatever to His creation for any reason whatever.

So, let's do a thought experimen ...[text shortened]... eas the other identical McIntosh apple is consistent with perfect justice and love. 🙄[/b]

You are putting God again next to a human with all the human flaws.
God isn't going to act that way, yet you keep dragging Him down on par with us.
How about you just treat God as God and man as man?
Kelly

Originally posted by finnegan

If you can answer me without going to another site that would be even better as I promise you my answers will be from me not some site that tells me how to respond or what I should think about this, that, or the other thing.

The other site to which you refer was giving a neat summary of the relevant points in the Book of Job, so in effect ...[text shortened]... rtant though as long as she can have more. Looks like I am left with chess. That's important.

I'll argue the book of Job once I know there is something worth arguing about.
For all I know we may agree on the book, or not...who knows.

I didn't ask you what was important in this life according the book of Job, I asked
you what is important in this life, if you believe in there more to this life than what
we see around us now...what than is important?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'll argue the book of Job once I know there is something worth arguing about.
For all I know we may agree on the book, or not...who knows.

I didn't ask you what was important in this life according the book of Job, I asked
you what is important in this life, if you believe in there more to this life than what
we see around us now...what than is important?
Kelly

That is an empty question without meaning. What makes anything important? It is also a diversion.

To repeat. You challenged the forum to supply an example of God acting in a way that is arbitrary and unjust. In the Book of Job I gave you a perfect example which also illustrates the weakness of your position, which I consider ranks with sunday school standards of thinking and which God Himself is described in that Book of Job as rejecting. You did actually ask me on page 9 of this thread "Could you be more specific please" and I have been more specific, which now appears to annoy you.

What is my own personal opinion? My opinion is that the Book of Job discusses God acting outside what humans would consider just or reasonable, indeed acting unjustly and unreasonably by any rational standard, and examines possible explanations for this. My opinion is that in that source, God is described rejecting any requirement to act justly or to be judged by humans as just, unjust or anything else. What leads God to do or omit anything whatever is described as beyond our comprehension. His actions are not necessarily rewards or punishments, nor are they valuable lessons, nor are they part of a plan, nor do they work out fine after all - they are not available for scrutiny or comment.

The significance of His having done all this to Job and his family (ten children!) as part of a rather too human challenge with Satan can be interpreted in many ways, none of which permit us to imagine that we have the slightest understanding of what God's intentions might be when we reflect on the events of our lives. Given that this is a Jewish folk tale in effect, in which humour and surprise can play their part to shake us out of conventional thinking, I suggest that it sets up that scenario to drive out any inclination to use human reasoning when addressing matters of faith. God might have any number of reasons for what happens and we are never going to grasp them so stop imposing your conventional, sunday school morality on a God who rejects them Himself in this and other sources within the Bible. For all we know, it says, He might have made a bet with Satan! We are left to consider how likely that is while registering the futility of our search.

From that I would suggest that the modern, evangelical, literalist demand for the Bible to be understood as a rational and accurate history is out of line with religious thinking throughout the past three millenia and longer, nor does it survive scrutiny. The combination of Jewish mysticism with Greek philosophy which today passes for tradition is a mixture of oil and water, as was understood from very early times and set out well by Augustine of Hippo. The type of conventional morality - typically inhumane in every way - imposed on some current interpretations of religious faith reflects a failure of religious imagination and an all to modern, ideological / political agenda that is not religious in its motivation or its practice.