Job and God's Complicity

Originally posted by Paul Dirac
So a small fish in the Pacific Ocean who bleeds to death over the course of an hour after getting her tail bitten off by a big fish is reaping what she sowed? Are you saying God really does want our world to work that way? Or is it that He is saddened that it works that way, but try though He might, He could not conceive of any better way to run things?

I'm saying that actions good and bad through time have caused a
great deal of pain and suffering for the place, starting at the fall of
man and the curses that followed. It just got worse as time rolled on.
Much of the pain and suffering we have today is the direct result of
our own actions, and much of it has spilled into the rest of creation
too.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
...and much of it has spilled into the rest of creation too.
Kelly

But what I would like you to meditate on is the issue of why it should spill over to blameless organisms.

I think that implicit in your belief system is that God is lacking in at least one of the two traits of all-good and all-powerful. If you think His lack is in precisely one of those two things, please tell me which one it is.

Do you agree that nothing could force God to make Earth's biosphere have your spillover effect? So in principle God could have designed things so that there was no spillover whatsoever from the human species to the other billions of species, right?

KellyJay, were you able to bring yourself to pray my prayer above?

In particular, what do you think of this part of it: "And being all-powerful, You certainly had the capability of changing the rules so that ONLY the human species would suffer these things."

Originally posted by Paul Dirac
But what I would like you to meditate on is the issue of [b]why it should spill over to blameless organisms.

I think that implicit in your belief system is that God is lacking in at least one of the two traits of all-good and all-powerful. If you think His lack is in precisely one of those two things, please tell me which one it is.

Do you agre ...[text shortened]... here was no spillover whatsoever from the human species to the other billions of species, right?[/b]

Or he's not omniscient. He could do it and would do it, if he only knew how.

Originally posted by Paul Dirac
But what I would like you to meditate on is the issue of [b]why it should spill over to blameless organisms.

I think that implicit in your belief system is that God is lacking in at least one of the two traits of all-good and all-powerful. If you think His lack is in precisely one of those two things, please tell me which one it is.

Do you agre ...[text shortened]... here was no spillover whatsoever from the human species to the other billions of species, right?[/b]

I thought told you why, once someone in control makes a choice
all that is in that person's control suffers or takes delight in that
choice. We were placed in a position of authority over the planet,
and that was why the planet got cursed, which caused everything
on this planet to suffer.
Kelly

Originally posted by Paul Dirac
KellyJay, were you able to bring yourself to pray my prayer above?

In particular, what do you think of this part of it: "And being all-powerful, You certainly had the capability of changing the rules so that ONLY the human species would suffer these things."

You may pray your own prayers, I'll pray mine.
Kelly

Originally posted by Paul Dirac
I have only heard of the dog dying through a phone call with my parents, so I don't know what my brother is thinking.

But my point was to broaden the discussion from mere human suffering to the suffering of all species that have nervous systems.

Here is a prayer that I think separates the men from the boys in the church:

[i]Lord, I know that You ...[text shortened]... hemselves to pray that prayer have some hope of coming over to the side of Rationalism some day.

Thanks, Paul.

What most interests me in this is what happens to one's thinking and belief system between the death and that prayer. That's what makes Job so intriguing.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Ivanhoe, I am wondering if, in addition to a magesterium, you would agree that having a capacity to understand suffering from personal experience should be a prerequisite for a pastoral calling.

It the cleric in question lives long enough, he'll get the requisite experience. They will directly experience loss and pain and frustration and so on. Whether they develop the capacity to understand the suffering waiting for them down the pikes of their lives, in addition to the capacity to merely be sympathetic to the suffering of others, is a different question.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe that God answers prayer and sometimes the answer is no,
and I do not believe for a minute that is wishy washy for a number of
reasons. First it would more than likely be our death if God didn’t
answer prayers in a responsible manner. Other times the answer is
yes too, but not granted the way we think it should be granted, those
times can be c ...[text shortened]... us, the
greatest of all is that we can know He is always with us, and always for
us.
Kelly

Suppose, hypothetically, that God just stopped answering prayers. Would anybody be able to tell the difference? Would the world thereby be a worse place?

Alternatively, suppose, hypothetically, that everybody just stopped praying, and Christians realized that it is pretty silly to bother a perfect being with personal requests, and that it makes more sense just to trust in His judgement. Would the world thereby be a place?

Originally posted by Paul Dirac
I have only heard of the dog dying through a phone call with my parents, so I don't know what my brother is thinking.

But my point was to broaden the discussion from mere human suffering to the suffering of all species that have nervous systems.

Here is a prayer that I think separates the men from the boys in the church:

[i]Lord, I know that You ...[text shortened]... hemselves to pray that prayer have some hope of coming over to the side of Rationalism some day.

Nice post.

Originally posted by Paul Dirac
I have only heard of the dog dying through a phone call with my parents, so I don't know what my brother is thinking.

But my point was to broaden the discussion from mere human suffering to the suffering of all species that have nerv ...[text shortened]... have some hope of coming over to the side of Rationalism some day.

[/i]I think this exactly expresses the dilemma of Job—and the dilemma of Jewish monotheism (and even the more monistic versions, such as Hasidism, for that matter), which is nondualistic and unflinching in asserting that everything in nature ultimately has its source in God, and still says “baruch atah…” (blessed are you). Or, in Job’s words: “YHVH has given, and YHVH has taken away; blessed be the name of YHVH.”

I don’t think it’s so much a question of blessing God for the suffering, though, but whether or not one can bless God anyway, in spite of. For the more monistic expressions, where God is thought of as ein sof—the infinite ground of being, rather than a being as such—the question still remains: can one affirm an ultimate “goodness” to the whole thing, in spite of suffering, or not. Is the harmony of the Tao worthy of affirmation even in the face of the suffering of the rabbit when plucked by the hawk? God or no God, can we affirm life in the face of the suffering it includes? How? On what basis?

Job’s story is about human suffering, but insists that Job is blameless—as blameless as the rabbit.

I’m going to try to get to the library tomorrow and look for a copy of Kushner’s book. My recollection of it is that Kushner concludes that God is not omnipotent with respect to being able to prevent suffering—but don’t hold me to that.

Originally posted by bbarr
Suppose, hypothetically, that God just stopped answering prayers. Would anybody be able to tell the difference? Would the world thereby be a worse place?

Alternatively, suppose, hypothetically, that everybody just stopped praying, and Christians realized that it is pretty silly to bother a perfect being with personal requests, and that it makes more sense just to trust in His judgement. Would the world thereby be a place?

You are assuming prayers are merely requests. They are not.

Originally posted by bbarr
Nice post.

Think about that a little longer please .......

Originally posted by ivanhoe

You are assuming prayers are merely requests. They are not.

First, I am not assuming that all prayers are requests, after all, you can define the word 'prayer' so that it includes any number of types of attempted communications with God. Perhaps contemplation and meditation qualify as prayer, according to your use of the term 'prayer. Perhaps expressions of devotion also qualify. I really don't care about these types of communication, as far as this thread is concerned.

Second, some prayers certainly are requests. I am asking KellyJay about those prayers that are requests.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Think about that a little longer please .......

O.K.....


....



Nice post, Dirac.