Well, a once-upon-a-time topic got derailed before getting into its finer points. But, since it involved a fair amount of source reading, and myriad issues, I thought I'd just pick out a couple. http://pctii.org/cyberj/WARC.html is the online source. Point #4 from the report: I find the bold-italic portion very fascinating. It is a form of a question brought up by many critics of Christian faith. Please note that nowhere do I see a criticism of interpretive diversity in the above passage, but rather a sentiment related to the result of that interpretive difference. I'm not sure what of the above to boldface or otherwise distinguish. It's a fairly broad plank. Again we find this assembly of scholars of Christian faith examining questions most often put forth by critics of the faith. In neither case do I perceive an ideological retreat by the faithful here. They are not rejecting God, or the Gospels, and take pains not to offend the notion of diverse interpretations of God's Word. I am, in all truth, pleased to see church groups working on this intellectual level. * We recognize that humans are not perfect. This is easy enough, but I reject it as a rebuttal of the issue addressed in Point 4 above: If the Gospel of reconciliation seemed to lack the power necessary to help Christians to resolve differences between themselves, how could it be trusted to bring reconciliation between human beings and their God? As I have noted on perhaps one or two occasions before, there is an anecdotal footnote from history describing a Cuban tribal chieftain who, upon learning that yes, there would be Spaniard Catholics in heaven, chose to reject the new faith, and receive the condemnation of his captors. It's an interesting perspective, that a tribal chieftain of "primitive" peoples or "savage brutes" (Spaniard documentation of the Americas fairly bleeds this terminology ...) recognized a question that, perhaps, has never been addressed until this recent WARC conference. I will skip, for the moment, my sentiment that God expects his people to behave better than the rest of us, choosing instead to stress the need to examine how the "Gospel of Reconciliation" came to be a divisive and sometimes violent force in society. * Furthermore, as we reaffirm that humans are not perfect, we are given to wonder what notions of faith actually address the issues. Point #93 becomes especially poignant in the recently-debated Matthew 25, that Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren .... Well, what of it? For here we find a church-body that is prepared to address the question. In word and deed, as the citation notes: I'm aware there is an overwhelming amount of poverty and indignity in the world. I'm aware that people of faith are much like me in their considerations. I would not revoke the "right" of a Christian to ignore an outstretched, hungry hand on the street, but I do wonder about it in terms of Matthew 25. It is well and fine to proclaim the Gospel, and even to vote on it. But word and deed do not pertain to one speech and one deed. As the citation notes, the Holy Spirit guides the faithful to work for both personal and structural transformation of society, thus participating in the ongoing process and realization of the prayer for the coming of the Kingdom of God. But, practically speaking, this is the crux of it. Applicably, this is where I step off the road with Christianity. Rhetorically, we could spend years on it, and some of us have spent a couple at least exploring the rhetoric, courtesy of Exosci. But applicably, I would charge that the issues created in Point 93, at least as related to Matthew, feed the issues presented in Point 4. And this relates to how Christians view and treat each other, as well as perspective and relations 'twixt Christians and those not sharing their faith proclamations. Thus: * What are the demonstrable effects of the Gospels, and how does that advance the standing of the Word of God in society? Why must interpretive diversity lead to such conditions where the faithful cannot agree on more than creed generalizations (e.g.--Jesus is Lord), or even go so far as to cause Christians to accuse each other of heresy and other disqualifying crimes against the Gospels? * Whence is redemption achieved? How does one recognize that their salvation is in effect, so that they might then make only token gestures of Christian love, and that they might turn away from the outstretched hand without taxing their conscience, or endangering their redemption? (Yes, I'm aware of the narwhal-sized spike in the second question; it's a leap from objectivity to what I think an objective result is. Naturally, I do not know an individual's motivation, but how many people willing to save your soul by force of the ballot box also walk past that outstretched hand? It is, I think, a fair question.) thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! PS--I'll skip the poll; it seems that's where the last one digressed, at first.
If I understand you correctly (and there's some doubt on my end as to that point), I think the italicized portion speaks a great truth. So many people seem to join religions to feel like they belong to something that's larger than themselves. Then, if they progress in their respective church, they begin to tackle other, more doctrinal issues. If they decide to stay in their church, they begin to think that their version of Christianity (or whatever) is the best choice, thus inscribing an indirect sense of inferiority on other religions. Not necessarily that those other religions are wrong so much as they are not as <i>complete</i> as what their <b>belief system</b> entails. Hence, the relative difficulty that most members of Christian sects find it exceptionally insurmountable to reconcile Christians with other Christians. It is a much easier task for them to <i>bring</i> non-believers or unknowledgable believers over to their line of thinking than it is to <i>reconcile</i> the differences in belief between them and other Christian sects. Not that this line of thinking is excusable, though. Christianity seems to be open to so much personal interpretation as to invalidate its source. So-and-so says this about this scripture, while Such-and-such says this--who am I to believe? I know, I'll interpret it this way which, according to my understanding, is the manner in which <i>it was originally intended</i>. An example of this is tony1, who denounces all with his left hand, shepherds some with his right hand, and assumes he understands the intent of the scriptures above all else here. A large detriment to the image of Christianity (which is not impervious to age) is the very fact that so many of its sects disagree on almost every conceivable point of principle, doctrine, and history. The uniformity of Christianity is a joke. It's been said that if Christ were to visit the earth, the first he'd get rid of would be the Christians. This, in itself, to me, implies that Christianity is built upon the foundations of a man, and not of a God. Christianity by its very nature is divisive, so it shouldn't be a surprise, I guess, that Christianity is very segmented and disrupted along many fault lines. <i>A house divided by itself cannot stand</i>. And Christianity is wobbling. <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> <i>Originally posted by tiassa:</i> Naturally, I do not know an individual's motivation, but how many people willing to save your soul by force of the ballot box also walk past that outstretched hand? It is, I think, a fair question. <hr> </blockquote> It is amazing that some people will consider the beggar on the street to be of dubious nature, that most likely this beggar goes out everyday and makes his living this way, while at the same time, feels it is their moral obligation to vote on the ballot box to take away the priveleges of others based on their Christian beliefs. They draw the line, not with themselves, but with others. It is easier to denounce the "bad" in others before taking an inward peek at the self. Admittedly, this is not new. But the point is that Christians have more of a moral obligation to others than themselves. It seems that they realize that their souls are already lost or saved, so they must make sure others are as well--regardless of what the individual they're working with thinks. What do Christians fear or detest the most? Former Christians. Not non-Christians. Not ignorance. Not conformity. Former Christians represent the most formidable opponents because this group has supposedly been deceived by the father of lies and seeks to undermine every good living thing. Or so they've been told. Christians think that former Christians, because they may be Anti-Christian are somehow Anti-<b>Good</b>. It would seem that former Christians are a threat to Christians, if for no other reason than former Christians know the arguments, the manipulative techniques, the guilt-inducing stories necessary to convert others. They see through the facade that Christians say is not there. Well, I'm not too sure if this is where you were going with this thread, <b>tiassa</b>, but I wanted to try and put down some thoughts on it. thanks, prag
Tiassa, <b>We recognize that humans are not perfect. </b> I think the above says it all. It speaks for not only the varied Christian beliefs but also other groups, too. If people do any one thing best, it must be the art of bickering over the finer points of a question. I don't want to derail your thread, so I will leave my comments short.
Bowser ... you have the benefit ... ... of being relevant in the first place. Worry yourself very little about that, Bowser. The primary digression of the last thread started with a badly-worded poll, and then I chose to spiral out onto what were, truly, issues irrelevant to the specific thread. * re: Bickering/finer points: generally, we'll find agreement here, I think. Perhaps we'll find different lines of how fine before splitting hairs, but there's room for general agreement, at least. * Human imperfection, in general: I agree that human imperfection is universal, and hardly limited to Christianity. The form of Christian imperfection, though, is alarming, at least, and quite dangerous in my opinion. The most apt slogan I've ever seen related to the followers of Jesus Christ was on a bumper sticker: Christians aren't perfect; we're just forgiven. Yeah ... and so what? I say, "So what," because of sentiments I've expressed elsewhere. For starters, as I noted in another topic, it isn't so much the Inquisitions or other atrocities themselves, but that the ideas motivating them still exist today. Christians have, apparently, been for so long aware of their forgiven imperfections that the larger body of Chrisitanity demonstrates that people just don't feel the obligation to transcend some of their imperfections. As noted in that other topic, how many of these imperfect faithful will attempt to save your soul at the ballot box while ignoring an outstretched, hungry, needing hand? Most of 'em, by the look of it. The principles of Christ range somewhere between compelling and wonderful. But I just don't see things like compassion being given freely in the modern day. Understanding that Christians are human beings is not difficult to do. Consider a more direct equivalent: sure, we know that other people can "get ahead" (as such) in the world if they forsake certain values and operate on greed. I accuse Christians of taking part in this parade of lunacy, especially in the US. And here in this country, we hear much talk and shouting of "rights". Yes, it's your right as an American, but are you a Christian first or an American first? To wit: For a Christian to take part in the Keeping-up-with-the-Joneses rat-race in full American glory asks that Christian to violate certain principles expressed by Christ. (e.g.--ballot box/needy hand) This is the equivalent to pointing out to God that the pagans don't worship Him, so a Christian should be able to have idols of gold (financial value, and it's a person's right to free enterprise in this country) or behave as the pagans do (divorce, free love, &c) and still be a Christian. In this sense, I invite any Christian to argue before God that he is a Christian who worships Damballah first while having a gay-oral-sex daisy-chain. * Would a Christian argue before God their right to worship a statue of Bel? * Would a Christian argue before God their right to beat the heck out of a smart-mouthed house-servant? * Would a Christian argue before God their right to preserve for themselves what they could give to another in need on the grounds that the needy are "unworthy", or "not important", or "too numerous and complex to deal with"? These largely deal with Point 93 from the WARC page. In relation to Point 4, the question is quite simple: * Take a look at what has happened in Northern Ireland for the last thirty, eighty, or eight-hundred years. But to stay with the modern time: how can this Irish Catholic or this British Protestant stand before God and explain that bombing the fish stand and killing six children in the process was a necessary glorification of His Name? * Take a look around at the homeless: how did there come to be so many of them? (This is why the senior President Bush once acknowledged that the homeless preferred" to live in squalor.) * Consider the money-frenzy of the 1980's ... in a nation predominantly peopled by claimed adherents to Christ, how did this happen? (Or is it the fault of the Jews, Atheists, and so forth ... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) You have a valid point, Bowser, but I truly do recall from my own Christian days that conducting oneself according to the same standards of the lowly infidels was not acceptable. Otherwise, what's the point of God's Judgement? (You lived in sin, left Me naked, left Me hungry, and did not welcome Me when I walked among you as a stranger; yet you advertised My name quite well, and saturated the market with it. Despite the fact that you advertised policy incorrectly, and rejected Me in the practice of your life, all is forgiven because your voice, at least, glorified My name.) People of faith must choose to lower their standards, must choose to behave by those lowered standards, and must choose to deceive themselves into believing that their human-wrought standards of convenience are, truly, in accord with the Immutable Word of God. This does not sound to me like the way to go about redemption. This does not sound to me like anything Jesus wanted, or God commanded. Oh, some of it does sound like the authoritarian wrath-of-God stuff in the OT, and some of it does sound like the human-wrought standards of personal affinity such as we might find in the later New Testament. But yes, it is a conundrum ... A compelling argument toward convincing me of the validity of the philosophy of Christian faith would be for people to actually meet the standard their God prescribes. Why, as a practical question, would anyone convert to the religion, if so few inside can accomplish its simple standards? thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
<i>"But yes, it is a conundrum ... A compelling argument toward convincing me of the validity of the philosophy of Christian faith would be for people to actually meet the standard their God prescribes. Why, as a practical question, would anyone convert to the religion, if so few inside can accomplish its simple standards?"</i> Those are very high standards, Tiassa, more so when you consider the true nature of the human beast. I think that our inability to sacrifice our desires is our fault, not that of Christianity. As a simple example, if you smack your thumb with a hammer, do you blame the hammer? If you kill your neighbor with the hammer, does the hammer go to jail? Hammers were created for the purpose of driving nails. Christianity was created for the purpose of bringing compassion where there was/is none. I would say that, judging from our mutual observations, we are still learning how to use the new tool. So, we are slow learners. i do believe we are getting better.
Yet they tell you it's about love ... * High standards: Too bad. They're God's standards. And this god is not flexible. * Human beast: Any religion which condemns the natural condition--e.g. born into sin--and demands rigid conformity at risk of deprivation at least, punishment as is generally regarded, creates adherents that are concerned with their own salvation first. We as people choose to come together in society, because it has a positive purpose. Christianity has had the effect of creating and enforcing divisiveness in the communities it involves. It demands homogony, and either chases away or undermines diversity. Harmony is only achieved through conformity. I find this human premise to be contrary to nature. * Hammers: Well, if it was a really smart hammer .... So what was Christianity designed to pound the hell out of? To take it a little more seriously, do you believe that the hammer is going to punish you for your perceived wrongdoings? That's a complication that comes with considerations of God; if God is supreme, then all valid argumentative points regarding God must respect this. If your religion motivates a person to hurt yourself or others, it is a fair consideration, among others, to wonder how that religion related to that person. Fair enough. But the learning curve of Christianity is disappointing. I completely accept and even advocate a certain notion here: the motivating device of the Inquisitions is still among us; the motivating device of the Witch Trials is still among us. Racism is no different from any other arbitrary hatred: it, too, suffers the same fault as the Christian failure. Specifically, a condition seems to set in where a common-identified group of people establish and bolster themselves, first inwardly as a community and then outwardly unto the world, through selective supremacy. As Christians have run out of races and genders to disparage, they turn to homosexuality, intoxicant use, artistic expression, and other doctrinal disagreements with the infidel world in order to find vent for the frustrations of a ridiculously demeaning religious experience. As Spooner pointed out: If the moralists would but just look to their own homes, they would find they have great work to do. And I just don't see flexibility in the Bible for a learning curve on discrimination, cruelty, and lack of human compassion. Is God flexible about murder? (Something about night and day here, that I can't recall exactly ....) But a learning curve is okay if you're in a situation that allows it. What if a vital learning curve is a flatline? What if all of that "learning" is just the reenactment of past sins? Because it is. I mean, people got it then, and people get it now, but they are the statistical exception, or else they would be the statistical majority and we wouldn't have the issue of the Christian failure to discuss at all. Christianity has had, does have, and will have a predominantly divisive effect on humanity. Now and forever, Amen. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Prag .... For the sake of ... anyway, I keep forgetting to shout over that it appears that you did, indeed, understand the topic post. Furthermore, the notion that religious structures are incomplete has not, as I recall, occurred to me before in the context I'm perceiving. Sure, there's that argument that the Second Coming hasn't arrrived, ergo God's kingdom is incomplete; however, that speaks nothing of the people, their beliefs, or the reconciliation thereof. The only issue I wonder about is one I pointed out to Bowser that it doesn't seem that Christians have much allowance for the learning curve; so perhaps incompletion is true in a psychological or anthropological form, and I suppose that's where I look, anyway, when a social movement goes wrong: how it reflects as an individual human process, and how it reflects as a mass human process. I have to take issue and note that Christ would still be after the lawyers, first; specifically, the ACLU, who would probably sue him on the grounds that his ministry is anti-cultural because it only applies to Christians. Will my dog be in heaven when I get there ... will I be able to find a good attorney? thanx much, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
<i>"But the learning curve of Christianity is disappointing. I completely accept and even advocate a certain notion here: the motivating device of the Inquisitions is still among us; the motivating device of the Witch Trials is still among us. Racism is no different from any other arbitrary hatred: it, too, suffers the same fault as the Christian failure. Specifically, a condition seems to set in where a common-identified group of people establish and bolster themselves, first inwardly as a community and then outwardly unto the world, through selective supremacy."</i> So, what we are talking about is the dominance of one group over another. Christians have a measure of power to influence our lives? If we can place aside acts which were committed centuries before this day, let's examine why a Christian might feel compelled to take an active role in our culture, relative to his/her beliefs. It's easy for me to understand why a drug user would like to change the laws which control Marijuana, even though parents might be opposed to their children being exposed to it. I can understand why homosexuals want social acceptance of their sexuality, even though many disagree with it. And it's not a far reach to understand the motivations of a Christian, either. To fault them for trying to make change where, if given the opportunity, any doper or homo would do the same, that is just, well, the attitude of a sore loser. <i>"Any religion which condemns the natural condition--e.g. born into sin--and demands rigid conformity at risk of deprivation at least, punishment as is generally regarded, creates adherents that are concerned with their own salvation first. We as people choose to come together in society, because it has a positive purpose. Christianity has had the effect of creating and enforcing divisiveness in the communities it involves. It demands homogony, and either chases away or undermines diversity. Harmony is only achieved through conformity. I find this human premise to be contrary to nature."</i> Conformity is a prerequisite to living in any form of society. Even with the liberal notion of a fair society, there is a requirment that one adheres to a set pattern of thought; and yes, liberals are not above using laws to enforce their notions of right and wrong. Punishment is a tool which they are willing to use. Conformity is very natural and observed in most animals which live in groups. Right and wrong, that is where the Christian and liberal really disagree.
Dominance, conformity, delusions and reality First and foremost, yes, insofar as we're talking about religion and state. It's the same issue that motivates the constitutional inclusion of religion. It was not Buddhist morals that dragged Luther Campbell into court over song lyrics. It was not Buddhist morals that Twisted Sister offended so badly as to result in A) the federal banning of the Lp Under the Blade from sale in the US; B) Senate hearings in which Al Gore chided Dee Snider over the name of the band's fan club: SMF. (Sick Mother-Fucking Friends of Twisted Sister.) I believe the record will show that Senator Gore's next sarcastic question was not: "I take it this is a Buddhist youth group?" It is not a Buddhist moral code compelling so many Oregon citizens to come together in their condemnation of homosexuality; nor is it Buddhism that motivates Judge Judy's wrath toward homosexuality, nor Dr Laura Schlesinger's hatred of gays. It was definitely not Buddhist morals that compelled Congress to violate the law while spending $40 million investigating a blowjob. In Lysander Spooner's day (1875, Vices Are Not Crimes), it was not Buddhist morals which compelled the laws and social codes to which he objected. It was not Buddhist morals that victimized Anne Hutchinson, or that carted half-naked women from town to town in the snow to publicly whip them for their immorality. No legitimate religion among the United States can claim as its constitutional right the power to persecute. No legitimate religion can enact this claim by changing the rhetoric. It's strange that Christianity relies so heavily in this country on its constitutional rights while screaming to remove those rights from others based solely on doctrinally-inspired arrogance. I'd say Christianity shapes a good deal of what I find negative in my life and community. Neither marijuana smokers nor homosexuals petition for laws suspending a person's civil rights because the rights were awarded to a Christian. Your comparison does not work because of the authority claimed for Christianity by Christians. I've never read pro-marijuana literature that says everyone should be required to smoke pot. I've never read homosexual literature that says everyone should be required to forsake heterosexuality. What Christians seem to take most grievously is the refusal of diverse peoples to homogonize according to Christian demand. In this sense, they are no different than aspiring dictators or juntas. I don't fault the religiously-deluded for trying to affect change. I fault the religiously-deluded for attempting to usurp the same rights from others that allow the religiously-deluded to maintain their delusions. I fault religionists for their sheer arrogance and assumptiveness. It isn't that they want to participate, but that they want to preclude others from participation. As Christianity walks away from the central current of human spirituality, something about sore losers comes to mind. Hmm .... That works both ways. As a Christian to conform, though, and you're accused of violating his sacred rights. Enforcement of right and wrong should not be so arbitrary as to be based on a single book like the Bible. Right and wrong should not be defined for an entire society solely by a body of persons suffering mass-delusions that they are chosen by the Universe to supercede other people in their greedy quest for redemption. Crime and punishment ... Christians attempt to punish people just for being alive. A guy murders, you punish him. A person believes in free expression ...? Apparently, in the name of free expression that person needs to shut the hell up, because they might be offending the God of the Christians. This conformity to which you refer is not conformity. It is how animals relate to life. I might be able to paraphrase a Tony1 statement here and describe the conformity you assert as: An animal is thirsty, it conforms to the principle that it must drink water. Do animals have rules about how you can cut your hair? What your clothes must look like? Whom they can have sexual intercourse with? What books should be allowed on their libraries? Didn't think so. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As an <i>aside</i> ... <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> <i>Originally posted by Bowser:</i> If we can place aside acts which were committed centuries before this day, let's examine why a Christian might feel compelled to take an active role in our culture, relative to his/her beliefs. <hr> </blockquote> <i>Centuries</i> before this day? What century are you living in? The Holocaust did not just happen because some despot thought it necessary to obliterate entire races and cultures--Christian churches were known to have supported him, at least until the churches themselves started getting bad publicity for upholding Aryan beliefs and practices. Slavery in the United States was upheld by the Bible (so say the slaveholders) and perpetuated to a great degree through the idea that other men should be subjugated to white men. Women were not allowed to vote for a <i>very</i> long time since they were thought to have no bearing in political matters (i.e., men were alone in this arena--a form of patriarchy instituted by religion); incidentally, this changed mainly due to the ideology that allowing women to vote would, in essence, double the voting power and direction of the husbands. Native Americans (you know, the ones that were nearly decimated by the early pioneers and settlers) were forced to relocate elsewhere and lose entire cultures and traditions for the sole purpose that God had willed "free" men to come here and build up the kingdom of God. Imagine giving up (or changing completely) one of these characteristics of your life: 1. Religious beliefs 2. Political persuasion 3. Sexual orientation 4. Familial relationship 5. Form of clothing 6. Language 7. Labor / Work 8. Status in society Imagine giving up (or changing completely) <b>ALL</b> of these. Pretty hard to imagine that? Well, not so many <i>years</i> ago, some indigenous cultures were forced to change all of these aspects because the dominant religion said they were inferior and needed to be brought up to speed. So, yeah, let's put <i>aside</i> the Holocaust; let's put <i>aside</i> the Witch trials; let's put <i>aside</i> those acts that ... Christians ... have done to others and focus on the present. After all, surely that genocidal, witch-hunting attitude no longer resides within the body of Christ, right? Conformity in Christianity is an absolute must. Isn't it a tad ironic to note that although Christ taught divisiveness, he does <i>not</i> condone divisiveness in his own church or its teachings? "Do as I say, not as I do" What a great example. And the people that do follow his words of advice (<i>ex</i>-Christians and non-religionists) are frowned upon. <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> And it's not a far reach to understand the motivations of a Christian, either. To fault them for trying to make change where, if given the opportunity, any doper or homo would do the same, that is just, well, the attitude of a sore loser. <hr> </blockquote> Sore loser, eh. Ever read or heard about the story of Job? Poor guy, he's down on earth while Satan and God are playing with his life. Anyway, to make this short, Job obeys God, doesn't "just curse him and die" and ends up blessed for it. But blessed according to who's view? God's view is for Job to obey Him; so God wins. Job wins because he insured that God won. Who loses? Job lost his entire family because of this bet that God and Satan entered into. Admittedly, it was his wife who said, "Why don't you just curse God and die?" But nothing derogatory was said about his sons and daughters. Do you think that perhaps at least one of his children was slightly put out that God smote them? Sore loser. <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> Conformity is a prerequisite to living in any form of society. Even with the liberal notion of a fair society, there is a requirment that one adheres to a set pattern of thought; and yes, liberals are not above using laws to enforce their notions of right and wrong. Punishment is a tool which they are willing to use. Conformity is very natural and observed in most animals which live in groups. <hr> </blockquote> People conforming to nonconformity is a form of conformity. In that sense, I would agree with you. But, if you're saying that conforming without questioning the conformity ... I must disagree. Naturally, to be included in a group, conformity takes place. So, if you're arguing that <i>Christians</i> need to start conforming to their own rules before they start trying to make others conform, I couldn't agree with you more! Otherwise, Christians fall into their own category of nonconformists. <blockquote> <font size="1">quote:</font> <hr> Right and wrong, that is where the Christian and liberal really disagree. <hr> </blockquote> Or, to phrase this another way: Right and wrong, that is where the liberal and Christian really disagree. thanks, prag
Sore losers .... Prag-- Your respone to Bowser has given me cause to give some thought to the notion of sore losers. It seems to me that God is the sore loser in Job. A curious little thing I've noticed. Job 1.11: * But now suppose you take away everything he has--he will curse you to your face. (Good News Bible, 1976) * But put forth Thy hand now and touch all that he has; he will surely curse Thee to Thy face. (New American Standard, 1977) * But now put forth your hand and touch anything that he has, and surely he will blaspheme you to your face. (New American Bible, 1991) * But stretch forth thy hand a little, and touch all that he hath, and see if he blesseth thee not to thy face. (Douay-Rheims, 1609) * But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.[/i] (King James Version, 1611) * But put forth thy hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. (Noah Webster Version, 1833) * The work of his hands Thou hast blessed, and his substance hath spread in the land, and yet, put forth, I pray Thee, Thy hand, and strike against anything that he hath -- if not: to Thy face he doth bless Thee! (Robert Young Literal Translation; 1862-98) * But put forth thy hand now and touch all that he hath, [and see] if he will not curse thee to thy face! (Darby's, 1890) * But put forth thy hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will renounce thee to thy face. (American Standard Version, 1901) * But put forth your hand now, and touch all that he has, and he will renounce you to your face. (Hebrew Names Version, 2000) * But put forth thy hand now, and touch all that he has, and he will curse thee to thy face. (Revised Standard Version, 1947-52) * sed extende paululum manum tuam et tange cuncta quae possidet nisi in facie tua benedixerit tibi (Jerome's Latin Vulgate, 405) Notes on the above * Douay-Rheims: online copy is being proofread; Job is not yet finished. * Jerome's Latin Vulgate: I neither speak nor read latin. Well, comparitively, I recognize familiar roots, but I wouldn't be able to tell you this from a brownie recipe in Latin without an English translation at hand. I provide this merely for the academic interest. * General note: Only two of the Bibles listed above are physically in my posession; the GNB was a gift to me upon my Lutheran confirmation, and the NAS was, I believe, my college Bible for a couple of terms of Judeo-Christian history. The remaining citations are obtained online: NAB and Douay-Rheims through links at http://www.newadvent.org ; remaining citations through http://www.blueletterbible.org Okay ... the official point here is that I am going to assert that God either lost the bet or asserted himself in fear of losing the bet. By the time God gets around to haranguing and belittling Job directly, Job is pretty damn furious. Chapter 38 seems to be the resounding prototype for a good deal of parenting strategy: * Who are you to question my wisdom with your ignorant, empty words? (Job 38.2) Well, what is the wisdom of pride? By any reading of Job I've experienced, the bet comes about like this: The Lord summons his heavenly servants, and among them is Satan. The Lord asks Satan what he's been up to, and Satan answers him. The Lord then proceeds to brag to Satan, a heavenly servant, about Job. Satan asks a question, puts a hypothetical before God, and God acts on it. (1.6-12) No reading of Job has the Satan saying, "I dare you," or, "Five bucks says the Job dude will curse you." Furthermore, you'll note that the Lord did not put forth his hand, take away everything, but rather granted Satan the right to screw with Job. In this sense, there arises an interesting issue regarding the status of Satan here. As a heavenly servant, he does in a figurative sense constitute the hand of God reaching out to touch, take, or strike against anything Job has. If Satan is not a rightful member of the heavenly host, then God has not reached out his hand, as such. * Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its size; do you know? Who stretched out the measuring line for it? Into what were its pedestals sunk, and who laid the cornerstone, While the morning stars sang in chorus and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (38.4-7) This truly sounds to me like an incensed parent: "Do you put food on this table, or a roof over your head? As long as you live in my house ...." (Well, buddy, if that's how you feel, maybe you shouldn't have had children.) * Will we have arguing with the Almighty by the critic? Let him who would correct God give answer! (40.2) Sure. I'll argue: That's a nice list of claims there, God. What, am I just supposed to believe that long-winded boast? I mean, two chapters dedicated solely to God's boasting .... And yet, it is only after Job is castigated by God and told that he has no right to complain does he repent. God further harangues this servant he chose to abuse: Would you refuse to acknowledge my right? Would you condemn me that you may be justified? (40.8) And how is God justified? Have you an arm like that of God, or can you thunder with a voice like his? Adorn yourself with grandeur and majesty, and array yourself with glory and splendor. Let loose the fury of your wrath; tear down the wicked and shatter them. Bring down the haughty with a glance; bury them in the dust together; in the hidden world imprison them. (40.9-13) Let's think about it: God boasts to Satan, and responds to what seems like a fair question by putting one of his faithful at stake and expecting the man to be thankful for the bounty o'crap. Sure, there's more citation here than commentary, but in the context of sore losers, your reply, I'm not sure what there really is to say. Call it inspiration to an idea, but I had some help: it's all there in the black and white of the Bible. But that's just my couple of pennies on sore losers. The other fun thing is the disagreement in translations: I'm willing to read figuratively, that touch means to strike or destroy or remove, but I'm not sure how many of the faithful are willing to read their Bible figuratively. After all, it's infallible as written; if only the people knew what it said. But God should never have taken the bet. Just because one thinks they can do something doesn't mean it's a good idea. But, since I see myself as officially digressing to respond to a single notion here, I might add that Job is not irrelevant to the discussion. Does God's message to Job have any effect on modern faith? Now there is an interesting topic in itself. But in that sense, at least, we find issues related to modern belief. There, a nice bring-around to justify myself. Yeah, that's it. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
