What part do you play?

[ampoule]

Whether you are a 'believer' in the Christian Bible or any religious writing for that matter, wouldn't you say some of the stories are well-written, intriguing and/or exciting? In my Bible As Literature class our professor had us get into the parables by placing ourselves into the story.
In the thread "What Is Your Favorite Passage, Book, and/or Verse In The Holy Bible", brainstrain brought up that The Prodigal Son is one of her (I think) favorites.

Read Luke 15:11-32 and tell what part you would play in the story, or if you feel that is too revealing, tell about someone you know whose life circumstances speak very loudly to this parable.

I will definitely have to play the part of the daughter who goes away but I did not receive my inheritance nor did I squander the same things. Instead, I squandered time, time with my family. Still, whenever I go back, I am welcomed with all of the best. Even my brother, who is there through thick and thin, seems glad to see me, but I wonder. I wonder how he feels when I pick up and leave again.

[MaryLupin]

The one religious text that spontaneously had me playing the part was the Bhagavad Ghita. The part I resonated with was Arjuna. Caught as he was between lines of family intent on killing each other, with a god for a charioteer and a duty to kill (he was a warrior, and that is, after all, what warriors do), he was in a rather difficult position. My life has been such that our situations have definite parallels.

I suppose this would be the basis for a psychological reading of the text.

[Pendragon]

In The Bible, Job is my character. I find myself in his place, stricken with an illness, losing pretty much all of my former life. I had worked from the time I was fourteen at hourly wage jobs, one of the few people who can say I worked my way through High School at my age. I worked on after marrying early, (age 19), in a wood-working factory, worked my way up the ladder to a high paying job. I became an ordained Non-denominational minister in 1982, serving as a traveling evangelist, and later as Assistent Pastor of a church. I lost all of that when I had a severe nervous breakdown and was declared disabled. They even tried to get my wife to divorce me. Job's comforters.

I fight on, despite everything, and hang on to my faith. One day one my tombstone it will say: "He NEVER gave up!" I fight worst and worse battles with my illness, and the medications make me very ill sometimes. But I fight on. Like Job, I have wished I were never born. Like Job I have complained. But I do not charge God foolishly, nor rejoice at the downfall of my tormenters.

God Bless.

Pen

[PrinceMyshkin]

Whether you are a 'believer' in the Christian Bible or any religious writing for that matter, wouldn't you say some of the stories are well-written, intriguing and/or exciting? In my Bible As Literature class our professor had us get into the parables by placing ourselves into the story.
In the thread "What Is Your Favorite Passage, Book, and/or Verse In The Holy Bible", brainstrain brought up that The Prodigal Son is one of her (I think) favorites.

Read Luke 15:11-32 and tell what part you would play in the story, or if you feel that is too revealing, tell about someone you know whose life circumstances speak very loudly to this parable.

I will definitely have to play the part of the daughter who goes away but I did not receive my inheritance nor did I squander the same things. Instead, I squandered time, time with my family. Still, whenever I go back, I am welcomed with all of the best. Even my brother, who is there through thick and thin, seems glad to see me, but I wonder. I wonder how he feels when I pick up and leave again.

With respect to the prodigal son story I would want to be the father but if I might shift ground a little: By Jewish tradition, my children are not Jews, having had a non-Jewish mother, nor have I ever wanted them to be anything but the fine, humane persons they are. When they were in their teens however, my two sons accompanied me to synagogue, to please my father. At the entrance to the chapel, a man was dispensing prayer shawls to those who didn't have their own. One of my sons turned to me and asked:
"What should we say if he asks us if we're Jewish?"
"You tell him," I said, "that you have the right to be here."
And I had a vision of myself, like Samson, pulling down the walls of the temple if that man or any other tried to bar their way.

[NikolaiI]

You are right, that's a lovely story, I remember it from my childhood. I'm not fresh on my biblical stories, though I've been through many of them, so I don't know which ones I think are well-written, and which are not. In that story, I am closest to the son who returns with nothing, though I never receive inheretance, either, or would necessarily squander it if did.

-Yet we do not know exactly what happened in this squandering. Isn't it bad to hoard, as well as to squander? Both words have a negative contingent. I know some would say it would be squandering to give all of the money away to a good cause, yet that's what Jesus tells the rich to do with their wealth. By the term squander, I assume we are guessing he did not do this, although some would probably consider it squandering.

Among other stories and what have you, I consider myself closest to a disciple to Christ, a monk, particularly one like Francis of Assissi (but oh!, the bugs!) or a Buddhist monk or something. The reason I would play a part like this is my value of spirituality over materialism, my curiosity and love for transcendentalism, and a driving love for discovery and learning (to see what I could become). I guess I've just always been drawn to asceticism, and I love the simplicity and spirituality of it. My two favourite monks are probably Francis and Anthony.


Oh, and in a somewhat similar vein to Jesus telling the rich to spend their wealth on a good cause, Walt Whitman says in "Song of the Open Road," one of my favourite poems,

"You shall not heap up what is call’d riches,
You shall scatter with lavish hand all that you earn or achieve",

and so on. It's a great poem. One of the great poems, lol.

Um..oh, and Pendragon: deeply moved and touched by your suffering, wish you all the best from here on out..I've heard your story before, it sounds awful. That sounds so horrible, people trying to get your wife to divorce you..anyway, I will pray for you. If you could remember me and pray for me too, I would be honored. :) You're such a nice guy, you always say God bless. :)

Have a beautiful day,
Nikolai

[motherhubbard]

.

I fight on, despite everything, and hang on to my faith. One day one my tombstone it will say: "He NEVER gave up!" I fight worst and worse battles


Like Paul who fought the good fight and kept the faith

[NikolaiI]

The reason I am closest to the wayward son is that he seems very healthy.

[Redzeppelin]

In The Bible, Job is my character. I find myself in his place, stricken with an illness, losing pretty much all of my former life. I had worked from the time I was fourteen at hourly wage jobs, one of the few people who can say I worked my way through High School at my age. I worked on after marrying early, (age 19), in a wood-working factory, worked my way up the ladder to a high paying job. I became an ordained Non-denominational minister in 1982, serving as a traveling evangelist, and later as Assistent Pastor of a church. I lost all of that when I had a severe nervous breakdown and was declared disabled. They even tried to get my wife to divorce me. Job's comforters.

I fight on, despite everything, and hang on to my faith. One day one my tombstone it will say: "He NEVER gave up!" I fight worst and worse battles with my illness, and the medications make me very ill sometimes. But I fight on. Like Job, I have wished I were never born. Like Job I have complained. But I do not charge God foolishly, nor rejoice at the downfall of my tormenters.

God Bless.

Pen

Your perseverance is an inspiration, my friend.

I think, if someone lives long enough, most every story in the Bible will resonate deeply within him/her - it just depends upon your age and experience. Job, I believe, is probably one of the acid test stories - a make-or-break test of faith in the face of incredible adversity and suffering. Those who haven't reached it may not fully appreciate it; those within it think it will never end; those past it have an understanding that words cannot communicate.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Your perseverance is an inspiration, my friend.

I think, if someone lives long enough, most every story in the Bible will resonate deeply within him/her - it just depends upon your age and experience. Job, I believe, is probably one of the acid test stories - a make-or-break test of faith in the face of incredible adversity and suffering. Those who haven't reached it may not fully appreciate it; those within it think it will never end; those past it have an understanding that words cannot communicate.

That is one way to look at the meaning of Job. From my point of view the story begins with God, unprovoked, boastfully proclaiming to Satan Job's adherence to God's ways. Satan expresses his cynicism re Job's faithfulness to God and God gives him over to Satan: 1: 11: "Behold, all that he hath is in thy power..." whereupon Job becomes a pawn in this wager between these two egotists. He loses all his wealth, his sons and daughters are killed and he suffers unspeakable physical torments, but

God wins the bet! And Job is rewarded for never despairing of God. His wealth is restored, he receives a new family...(And some will no doubt argue that, having faith, he never suffered over the loss of his sons and daughters and that they, although their lives were cut short, were rewarded in the after life. Maybe.)

It's a terrible story! If proof of God's existence, proof also of his capriciousness.

[Redzeppelin]

That is one way to look at the meaning of Job. From my point of view the story begins with God, unprovoked, boastfully proclaiming to Satan Job's adherence to God's ways. Satan expresses his cynicism re Job's faithfulness to God and God gives him over to Satan: 1: 11: "Behold, all that he hath is in thy power..." whereupon Job becomes a pawn in this wager between these two egotists. He loses all his wealth, his sons and daughters are killed and he suffers unspeakable physical torments, but

God wins the bet! And Job is rewarded for never despairing of God. His wealth is restored, he receives a new family...(And some will no doubt argue that, having faith, he never suffered over the loss of his sons and daughters and that they, although their lives were cut short, were rewarded in the after life. Maybe.)

It's a terrible story! If proof of God's existence, proof also of his capriciousness.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. People who do not believe in God tend to fully misinterpret what these stories reveal to us. The kind of God that these individuals seem to desire is one that never allows discomfort or suffering to come upon the innocent and that life always be FAIR and that any perceived unfairness on God's part negates Him as being the loving God scripture tells us that He is. God cannot exist in the fairy-tale form that many people seem to want Him to exist in. Not happening: the cosmis story unfolding is far more complex than Cinderella and requires something much more complex than a fairy godmother to magically solve all problems. (By the way, did you notice even in Cinderella that the FG didn't rescue Cindy from her circumstances? The prince did that - motivated by the vision of Cindy that the FG helped facilitate - anyway...)

First, the story of Job does not take place in a "static" universe: it takes place in a universe marred by sin in a location that is - technically - under the dominion of Satan (Christ refers to Satan as the "prince of this world" prior to His crucifixion); as such, there is more at stake here than just what happens to Job. God boasted about Job because Satan (whose name means "accuser") spends most of his time accusing both God and humanity of things that are not true. Here, Satan's accusation is that God is not a good God - that Job only serves Him because God rewards him - which cannot rightly said to be love - because those who "love" because of reward are really in love with themselves, not the other. God answers this challenge by allowing Job to serve Him in the greatest of ways; in essence, Job vindicates God from Satan's charge. In some ways, the cosmic war is really a gigantic court case. What's on trial? The character of God.

As CS Lewis says in the Screwtape Letters where an older devil gives lessons to a younger tempter-devil: never is our kingdom in greater danger than when a Christian looks at a universe that seems to be empty of God and chooses to serve Him nonetheless. (paraphrase).

2. The book of Job reveals what it means to live in a sinful fallen world - in such a place, bad things happen to both the good and the bad; and, conversely, good things happen to both the good and the bad. The demand for a simple black-and-white God cannot work in the current context of a sinful world. Modern soldiers often consider it an honor to sacrifice their lives to defend their country; Christians see standing up for God likewise.

I'd go on, but I don't like doing lenghty posts. That's a partial answer to your comments.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. People who do not believe in God tend to fully misinterpret what these stories reveal to us. On the other hand, people who can read, read. Before they attempt to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse, they note that it IS a sow's ear to begin with. The kind of God that these individuals seem to desire is one that never allows discomfort or suffering to come upon the innocent and that life always be FAIR and that any perceived unfairness on God's part negates Him as being the loving God scripture tells us that He is.So he is at once a loving God andone who allows suffering to fall upon the innocent - or in this case, instigates that suffering. God cannot exist in the fairy-tale form that many people seem to want Him to exist in.Really? What about impregnating a virgin, the Magi and the Star of Bethlehem? The burning bush? The parting of the Red Sea, &c. Not happening: the cosmis story unfolding is far more complex than Cinderella and requires something much more complex than a fairy godmother to magically solve all problems. (By the way, did you notice even in Cinderella that the FG didn't rescue Cindy from her circumstances? The prince did that - motivated by the vision of Cindy that the FG helped facilitate - anyway...)Well, you have at last found an appropriate analogy.

First, the story of Job does not take place in a "static" universe: evidence?it takes place in a universe marred by sin in a location that is - technically - under the dominion of Satan (Christ refers to Satan as the "prince of this world" prior to His crucifixion); as such, there is more at stake here than just what happens to Job. But it is Job who suffers it. God boasted about Job because Satan (whose name means "accuser") spends most of his time accusing both God and humanity of things that are not true. Not in the story Here, Satan's accusation is that God is not a good God - that Job only serves Him because God rewards him - which cannot rightly said to be love - because those who "love" because of reward are really in love with themselves, not the other.It is God who first presents Job to Satan as an example. God answers this challenge by allowing Job He "allows" Job?to serve Him in the greatest of ways; in essence, Job vindicates God from Satan's charge. In some ways, the cosmic war is really a gigantic court case. What's on trial? The character of God. If so he proves Shakespeare's line: "Like flies to wanton boys are we to the gods. They kill us for their sport."

As CS Lewis says in the Screwtape Letters where an older devil gives lessons to a younger tempter-devil: never is our kingdom in greater danger than when a Christian looks at a universe that seems to be empty of God and chooses to serve Him nonetheless. (paraphrase).In Job's eyes the universe is FAR from empty of God.

2. The book of Job reveals what it means to live in a sinful fallen world - in such a place, bad things happen to both the good and the bad; and, conversely, good things happen to both the good and the bad. The demand for a simple black-and-white God cannot work in the current context of a sinful world. Modern soldiers often consider it an honor to sacrifice their lives to defend their country;Indeed they do and in places such as Iraq, their honour may not only be muisplaced but it may be criminally misused by their "superiors". Christians see standing up for God likewise.

I'd go on, but I don't like doing lenghty posts. That's a partial answer to your comments.

Have you actually READ Job - lately? You have stuffed it full of theological interpretations. Read the TEXT. Does God NOT boast to Satan about Job? Does He not offer Satan the freedom to do with Job as he will, in order to prove God's pride in him? Does Job not suffer hideously as a result of God's offering him to Satan?

Read the text. If it is - to you - the word of God, does it not mean what it says, without the need for all this sophistry to make it other than what it is?

[MaryLupin]

To clarify this argument textual lines could be used. To aid in this I have found 2 online texts. The first is the Book of Job (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2701.htm) in the Kethuvim. The second is from one of the Christian (http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=RsvBJob.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all) versions.

In a good evidence based discussion of a text, instead of saying things like “Have you actually READ Job - lately?” one provides the line quotations to show the error. So, please, if you want us to take your argument seriously (which I am willing to do based on evidence) please refer back to the text at hand to make your point. That way anyone who reads here can then go to the website and judge for themselves the accuracy of the observation about the text.

[PrinceMyshkin]

To clarify this argument textual lines could be used. To aid in this I have found 2 online texts. The first is the Book of Job (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2701.htm) in the Kethuvim. The second is from one of the Christian (http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=RsvBJob.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all) versions.

In a good evidence based discussion of a text, instead of saying things like “Have you actually READ Job - lately?” one provides the line quotations to show the error. So, please, if you want us to take your argument seriously (which I am willing to do based on evidence) please refer back to the text at hand to make your point. That way anyone who reads here can then go to the website and judge for themselves the accuracy of the observation about the text.

I agree in principle but in this case I had cited what seemed to me to be the relevant lines in a post shortly before this one.

[MaryLupin]

I agree in principle but in this case I had cited what seemed to me to be the relevant lines in a post shortly before this one.

Cool. What about you Redzeppelin? Can we discuss this text using the actual quoted words to support our mutual passion about the subject? Can we leave out the invective?

[Bookworm4Him]

Have you actually READ Job - lately? You have stuffed it full of theological interpretations. Read the TEXT. Does God NOT boast to Satan about Job? Does He not offer Satan the freedom to do with Job as he will, in order to prove God's pride in him? Does Job not suffer hideously as a result of God's offering him to Satan?

Read the text. If it is - to you - the word of God, does it not mean what it says, without the need for all this sophistry to make it other than what it is?

1) We do not think it right to boast b/c everything we have was given to us at one time or another, Christians would say by God, others by Allah, Buddah, a supreme force, science, your mother, but no one provided God with his omnipresence, etc., so he has the right to boast. Nothing wrong there.

2) He knew that Job could withstand Satan, so He let Satan try, to show that Satan is not all powerful. yes, in fact, it did prove God's pride in him, but a just, and perfect pride, not self-conceited, sinful pride. Nothing wrong there either. Job does suffer, but when he withstands it, he is blessed with way more than had had. It is hard to create a perfect example, b/c we cant make living things, but it is similar to being a parent. Let's use an all to common case senerio. Say you had a five year old that loves cookies, and when it's sitting right there on the counter, cant help but snitch a few from the cookie yar. You had told him not to, so you have to punish him. You discipline him, tell him why he is being punished, and then forgive him. But while they are learning, you dont leave it out for easy access. After a few times (depending on how headstrong your child is ;) ) they learn. They know better than to take cookies. So you put the cookie jar back out, to see if he takes a cookie, and if he can be trusted. If he can, you reward him, maybe by allowing him to have a cookie a day, as long as it's not right before dinner. That's not as complicated as Job's story, b/c parents aren't the ruler of the universe, and Satan isn't a cookie jar. But similar enough.

Back to the original thread, i think I play both the parts of the prodigal son, and the other son. The prodigal, b/c God has given me so many gifts, and I squander them so often, but come back. And trust me, I have traveled that road many many times. But as a Christian, I tend to judge others, like the older brother. Also, I've been saved since I was very young, so I resemble the older brother in that way of "being at my father's house" for a long time. Basically, in matter of saved vs unsaved, I'm like the older brother, in matters of sin, I'm definitly like the prodigal son, like almost everyone.

[PrinceMyshkin]

1) We do not think it right to boast b/c everything we have was given to us at one time or another, Christians would say by God, others by Allah, Buddah, a supreme force, science, your mother, but no one provided God with his omnipresence, etc., so he has the right to boast. Nothing wrong there.The result of his boasting is the extreme suffering of one of 'his' creatures, so I disagree, EVERYTHING wrong there.

2) He knew that Job could withstand Satan, And did he also know, did he feel how acute that suffering would be? Did he too suffer along with Job? Or along with Abraham and Isaac when, once again, he set someone a test of how much they believedin or worshipped him?so He let Satan try, to show that Satan is not all powerful. yes, in fact, it did prove God's pride in him, but a just, and perfect pride, not self-conceited, sinful pride. Nothing wrong there either. Job does suffer, but when he withstands it, he is blessed with way more than had had. How blithely you pass over the loss of his ten children! Does the new family he receives compensate him in any way for the loss of those others? To God, perhaps, we are interchangeable and dispensable, but surely that is not the way we experience each other? It is hard to create a perfect example, b/c we cant make living things, but it is similar to being a parent. Let's use an all to common case senerio. Say you had a five year old that loves cookies, and when it's sitting right there on the counter, cant help but snitch a few from the cookie yar. You had told him not to, so you have to punish him. You discipline him, tell him why he is being punished, and then forgive him. But while they are learning, you dont leave it out for easy access. After a few times (depending on how headstrong your child is ;) ) they learn. They know better than to take cookies. So you put the cookie jar back out, to see if he takes a cookie, and if he can be trusted.If I may extrapolate from your example: Job has weathered in perfect faith all the customary trials of normal human life. So then God says (or allows Satan to do this on his behalf): Let's see if his faith is good enough for far more than that, for the most several trials that can be imposed on him. It is tantamount in your example, to the father starving his five year old for several days and then setting the cookie jar before him! as it's not right before dinner. That's not as complicated as Job's story, b/c parents aren't the ruler of the universe, and Satan isn't a cookie jar. But similar enough.

A better analogy for me would be King Lear, in which Lear proposes to reward his daughter's according to the degree of their professed love for him. The end of the play to me has always been something of a triumph despite its tragic element, despite the fact that Cordelia (like Job) pays the price for her faher's egocentrism. The triumphant part is that Lear learns that his love for Cordelia is even more important to him than her professessions of love for him.

Not so, as I see it for God. You might retort that he so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, &c., but once again it was someone else - Job in the one case, Jesus in the other - who paid the price. One may surmise that God suffered at Christ's death, but there is no evidence of that. One may argue that Christ after all was resurrected, but - was the world indeed saved? And where is the measure by which you judge the resurrection to have been adequate compensation for the suffering? Imagine yourself on the cross. Imagine yourself in the face of the loss of one or more of your children. Imagine yourself with your dagger raised, ready to plunge it into the heart of one of your children.

[Redzeppelin]

On the other hand, people who can read, read. Before they attempt to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse, they note that it IS a sow's ear to begin with.

That's you making an assumption. My point is that people always interpret a story from inside a particular framework; anybody familiar with literary criticism knows that it is possible to "see" a story from a number of different persepctives (some more valid than others; some completely invalid). Your statement reveals your presuppositional judgment.



So he is at once a loving God andone who allows suffering to fall upon the innocent - or in this case, instigates that suffering.


You assume that suffering cannot occur for a good reason, or that suffering is always bad, or that there is nothing positive that can come from suffering. If I love my children, sometimes I let them suffer the consequences of their choices (Note: this is not what is occurring in Job - but I'm trying to make a larger point about suffering). As well, Christian theology points to the fact that humanity is often only capable of discovering its need of God when in the midst of suffering (because suffering is proof of our humanity and our inability to control our world).


Really? What about impregnating a virgin, the Magi and the Star of Bethlehem? The burning bush? The parting of the Red Sea, &c.

By "fairy tale" I do not mean "miraculous events" but the desire for the Disney-ending - all good is rewarded, all bad punished; such things will eventually be fully resolved, but - until the final judgment - sometimes bad things will happen to good people. "Fairness" is important to God - but fairness will ultimately be dispensed in the end.


Well, you have at last found an appropriate analogy.

No comment.


evidence?

Yes: the rest of the Bible.

Good readers understand that context matters - and the books of the Bible cannot be extracted from the context of the entire Bible without doing some violence to the integrity of the story. The arc of the biblical narrative (esp the NT) makes it clear that the world has been tainted by sin.


But it is Job who suffers it.

Your point is? Yes he does suffer - does the text indicate that God took pleasure in this development? What should God have done - zapped Satan out of existence? Said "No - you're not doing anything to him"? How do the other options serve the greater picture of the vindication of God before the universe?


Not in the story

Stories do not occur in a vacuum: there are contexts that surround those stories. To ignore these contexts means that there is a chance that the reader may very well misinterpret key aspects of the story. Since Satan is a character in the story, and since he is the primary antagonist in biblical narrative, his character (and his name) matter in terms of understanding his motivation. Why a character does something is always more important than what the character does.


It is God who first presents Job to Satan as an example.

So? Are you implying that God set Job up? The text doesn't support that. Let's do some basic analysis: if a character says something like "Have you considered my servant Job?" shouldn't we try to understand why God might have put such a thing forward? Example: scene opens up with Dad meeting with sons; dad says to one son "So, have you noticed how clean my car is?" Should we assume from that statment that the son spoken to must have some sort of concern with the state of the car? Or that it is important to dad that the son notice the condition of the car? Since Satan's name means "accuser," might it not make logical sense that God is merely responding to the usual accusations by Satan (which Satan verifies later by claiming that Job only serves God because God lavishes rewards upon him)? There is a logic that can be inferred from a dialogue - and you seem to be ignoring that logic.


He "allows" Job?

OK, how about "calls upon"?


If so he proves Shakespeare's line: "Like flies to wanton boys are we to the gods. They kill us for their sport."

Where did God ever act as if this was merely a game? You assume that this had no personal effect on God because the narrative does not tell us it did. This was a high-stakes moment - but it won't appear so to those who don't get the entirety of the Bible - just like many of Shakespeare's idioms and topical jokes are missed by many people who are unfamiliar wtih Elizabethan culture and language.


In Job's eyes the universe is FAR from empty of God.

Good grief - do you not get the point? Must I spell such things out? Here: in other words, the Lewis reference is to point out that Job's performance annihilates Satan's charge against God - Job does not give in to the temptation to - as his wife advises - "curse God and die."


Indeed they do and in places such as Iraq, their honour may not only be muisplaced but it may be criminally misused by their "superiors".

Nice. You ignored the validity of my point - because we certainly honor the sacrifices willingly taken on by good men/women in the armed forces, but you focus on the radical zealots whose "sacrifice" really involves sacrificing innocents. Are you unable/unwilling to give any ground in an argument?


Have you actually READ Job - lately? You have stuffed it full of theological interpretations.

Many times. I have provided contextual "framing" for the story. You're reading it out of context and supplying your interpretation based on things that change the meaning of the story.



Read the TEXT.

I have. But I also read Macbeth as a teenager and didn't understand it even a quarter as well as I did once I understood Elizabethan England, Reniassance theology/cosmology and Jacobean demonology. Macbeth is entertaining and relevant in a "cold" reading, but it gains power if one understands the context that "frames" the story.



Does God NOT boast to Satan about Job? Does He not offer Satan the freedom to do with Job as he will, in order to prove God's pride in him? Does Job not suffer hideously as a result of God's offering him to Satan?

Yeah, so? It's not about God's pride; it's about Satan's charge against God and God's vindication. Don't you get it? Satan challenged the authority of God - he wanted to be equal with God. Through Satan, sin has entered the universe. Like a trial lawyer, he has brought forward the charge that many atheists/agnostics put forward: God is unfair; His servants serve him out of fear or desire for reward but not out of faith and love. The story of Job lays out like a courtroom drama: Satan comes forward and challenges God's boast that there are good people on the earth who serve Him; Satan denies that that servitude is out of love and God - who knows that Job's character will bring him through this trial - allows Satan to put Job to the test - almost as "evidence" if you will. God does not allow Job to suffer because He wants to be "proud" - He does so to prove to Satan that his charge is wrong.


Read the text.

Why don't you read the entire Bible a few times in order to understand exactly what it is you're trying to criticize?


If it is - to you - the word of God, does it not mean what it says, without the need for all this sophistry to make it other than what it is?

No sophistry is present. There are major theological issues at stake in this story - but without proper context, it is easy to misinterpret it. Good readers are very clear on this reality.


PS - would you mind dealing with our posts in a more traditional way? The interlinear comments make it very tedious to cut and paste your comments? Thanks.

[PrinceMyshkin]

PS - would you mind dealing with our posts in a more traditional way? The interlinear comments make it very tedious to cut and paste your comments? Thanks.

I am giving up debating this with you.

[Redzeppelin]

I am giving up debating this with you.


Your choice - but why?

[PrinceMyshkin]

Your choice - but why?

I don't know if I can say this without being offensive, but there is a German word: Lebenslüge, which means “sham existence, to live a lie" which I have seen elsewhere explained as the lie that is necessary in order for one to live.

In my perception you absolutely need to be right. Or perhaps, to believe you are right. I'm another such, so I think the outcome of debate between us could only be that one or the other of us is thoroughly routed. You remind me of both Lenin and Bobby Fischer, the first of whom said that when he argued with an opponent his aim was to crush him; and Fischer said virtually the same thing: that he didn't play chess to win but to crush his opponent's ego.

[Redzeppelin]

I don't know if I can say this without being offensive, but there is a German word: Lebenslüge, which means “sham existence, to live a lie" which I have seen elsewhere explained as the lie that is necessary in order for one to live.

A statement equally apt to apply to Christian and non-believer alike.


In my perception you absolutely need to be right. Or perhaps, to believe you are right.

Your perception may or may not be reality.


I'm another such, so I think the outcome of debate between us could only be that one or the other of us is thoroughly routed. You remind me of both Lenin and Bobby Fischer, the first of whom said that when he argued with an opponent his aim was to crush him; and Fischer said virtually the same thing: that he didn't play chess to win but to crush his opponent's ego.

Wow - I address your criticisms one by one, pointing out my side of the argument, and you withdraw with this ad hominem? I don't get how pointing out relevant issues to the topic at hand is a need to "be right" - I'm not asking you to tell me I'm right - I'm asking you to consider some factors in evaluating the book of Job. Your choices are to a) admit I've got a point; b) point out the errors in my argument; or c) withdraw with a personal attack.

Apparently, you've chosen "c."

I'm disappointed. I expected more.

[Visionary3]

Being a woman and no great saint I feel presumptions, but would play the part of John, the desciple that Jesus loved, in the first, second, and third chapter of Revelation. John heard Jesus voice after the resurrection and then saw Him looking very different and fainted. Jesus told John to write what he saw, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter. Then I, as John, would write what Jesus said about the seven churches and see that they received His words to them.

[billyjack]

I don't know if I can say this without being offensive, but there is a German word: Lebenslüge, which means “sham existence, to live a lie" which I have seen elsewhere explained as the lie that is necessary in order for one to live.

In my perception you absolutely need to be right. Or perhaps, to believe you are right. I'm another such, so I think the outcome of debate between us could only be that one or the other of us is thoroughly routed. You remind me of both Lenin and Bobby Fischer, the first of whom said that when he argued with an opponent his aim was to crush him; and Fischer said virtually the same thing: that he didn't play chess to win but to crush his opponent's ego.

i think this pigeonholes redzep deliciously well!

[Logos]

Closed because some people are forgetting there are rules here:
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15410