Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Do you not also recognise natural evil such as befell Job?

So a storm, say, or a fire, or an earthquake, is a "natural evil"? Sorry, I can't see that.

Sine evil is completely subjective, it's very possible for those who lost their homes or loved ones to a natural disaster to think of the event as evil.

[Belindi]

Arguably the evil that Job experienced was not natural. God allowed Satan to destroy his life. So it could be said; that Job’s suffering was supernatural because it was done to him (contextually) as a “bet” between two divine beings. It was fate rather than anything to do with the course of nature. But that being said. I don’t know where to demarcate nature and destiny.

Moral evil is intentional : natural evil is unintentional.

Job suffered from boils; the boils did not intend to plague Job : boils are an example of natural evil.

I suggest you go back the the text.
Job's suffering was all intentional

The issue of boils and natural evil are intentional in terms of interpretation. It is possible to feel persecuted by divine forces in the face of many obstacles. I know that I have had my Job moments when I feel as if everything is going wrong and wonder what is going on. At times life seems so unfair, but it is partly about interpretation. It is possible to compare oneself with others, who seem to have a life which goes so smoothly. But, that may be a subjective comparison as the other may have feel that they are suffering and circumstances can change rapidly. The interpretation of it being divine forces of good and evil may skew the experience of suffering and evil.

Yes, stories are interpreted according to the interpreter regardless of the author's intentions.
If Job was self-pitying he had reason to be so. If divine or satanic forces are believed to be the cause of troubles then the sufferer can feel comforting quiescence.
Unbelievers don't have the option of attributing troubles to Satan's or God's will.

[Sy Borg]

Moral evil is intentional : natural evil is unintentional.

Job suffered from boils; the boils did not intend to plague Job : boils are an example of natural evil.

I suggest you go back the the text.
Job's suffering was all intentional

The issue of boils and natural evil are intentional in terms of interpretation. It is possible to feel persecuted by divine forces in the face of many obstacles. I know that I have had my Job moments when I feel as if everything is going wrong and wonder what is going on. At times life seems so unfair, but it is partly about interpretation. It is possible to compare oneself with others, who seem to have a life which goes so smoothly. But, that may be a subjective comparison as the other may have feel that they are suffering and circumstances can change rapidly. The interpretation of it being divine forces of good and evil may skew the experience of suffering and evil.

Yes, stories are interpreted according to the interpreter regardless of the author's intentions.
If Job was self-pitying he had reason to be so. If divine or satanic forces are believed to be the cause of troubles then the sufferer can feel comforting quiescence.
Unbelievers don't have the option of attributing troubles to Satan's or God's will.

It always seemed to me that Job's children got the rough end of the pineapple. So, some years ago, I wrote a short story from the perspective of Job's children.

After being killed, Jemima (a daughter) goes to heaven. There, she learns that God had won the bet and given Job a a fresh new set of children, and she is curious to know what they are like:

In these modern days, if you need to find out what's happening on Earth, you could go to Heaven's library and peek though one of their new EarthSpy® units.

My replacement was said to be the second most beautiful woman in all the land, only bettered by her elder sister, Jemima (the new one). Let's see if the rumours are true ...

'Am I the most beautiful of all?' Keziah the Second pleaded with our father.

'No my darling, you are only the second most beautiful, after your sister Jemima. You are a wondrous beauty, though, not like that poor, unfortunate version of you that Satan killed off.'

'Wow, she must have been really ugly!'

'Indeed. Look, I have a carving of her.'

'Is that her nose or a knot in the wood?'

'Both.'

'Yikes.'

'Exactly,' my traitorous father agreed.

'I'm certainly glad that I am not as ugly as her,' Keziah the Second and Conceited Little Rat added pointlessly.

[Pattern-chaser]

There is nothing to be learned from this myth, except to give a true rendering of it.
To do otherwise is to pretend that it is not mythical but true.

"Myth" and "truth" are not opposites, or complements, either. The point of myth is not that it isn't true — some myths are, e.g., 'true' stories — but what can be learned from it. Sometimes, of course, there is nothing to be learned; a story is sometimes just a story, an entertainment. But other stories carry messages, some of them useful, others offer advice (like Aesop's fables, or Christian parables). But this topic is about God, not myth, so I'll leave my comment there.

[Pattern-chaser]

Do you not also recognise natural evil such as befell Job?

So a storm, say, or a fire, or an earthquake, is a "natural evil"? Sorry, I can't see that.

Since evil is completely subjective, it's very possible for those who lost their homes or loved ones to a natural disaster to think of the event as evil.

Isn't 'evil' intentional?

[Belindi]

Moral evil is intentional : natural evil is unintentional.

Job suffered from boils; the boils did not intend to plague Job : boils are an example of natural evil.

I suggest you go back the the text.
Job's suffering was all intentional

What the author intended by the story, and what modern people can learn from the story are not the same. If the story of Job is morally relevant to post enlightenment men it's a story about justice and injustice, not a story about unquestioning faith.

What the author intended is also useful as an anthropological source that bears on beliefs of a people of that time and place.

There is nothing to be learned from this myth, except to give a true rendering of it.
To do otherwise is to pretend that it is not mythical but true.

THe only thing we can learn from it is that whoever invented the story had an opinon about faith. If you shose to ignore the story because it does not match your picture of faith, then there are plenty more to chose from.

The story of Job may be complete and utter fiction as far as I know, but I can see a meaning in it. I am not particularly interested in why anyone in the twenty-first century has faith in The Bible as God's holy word, and I think of that as a question for sociologists and psychologists. I am interested in The Bible as literature.

Works of literature are sometimes reworked for the stage or film play, or have sequels and prequels added. Fiction is a way we express how the world seems to us and how it may be different.

I guess you are reading The Book of Job for its anthropological/historical source material in particular its "opinion about faith". This is also interesting .

[Sculptor1]

There is nothing to be learned from this myth, except to give a true rendering of it.
To do otherwise is to pretend that it is not mythical but true.

"Myth" and "truth" are not opposites, or complements, either.

I'll not deny that, but it is well to remember that the "truth" is just an opinion here. And the twisting of the intention of the writer is just adding another opinion. Such opinions are true to those holding them but may be dismissed without consideration by others.

Is it true there was a person called Job and that this is an accurate narritive of his life.
Yes ot no?
If no then this myth is not true.

The point of myth is not that it isn't true — some myths are, e.g., 'true' stories — but what can be learned from it. Sometimes, of course, there is nothing to be learned; a story is sometimes just a story, an entertainment. But other stories carry messages, some of them useful, others offer advice (like Aesop's fables, or Christian parables). But this topic is about God, not myth, so I'll leave my comment there.

[Sculptor1]

I suggest you go back the the text.
Job's suffering was all intentional

What the author intended by the story, and what modern people can learn from the story are not the same. If the story of Job is morally relevant to post enlightenment men it's a story about justice and injustice, not a story about unquestioning faith.

What the author intended is also useful as an anthropological source that bears on beliefs of a people of that time and place.

There is nothing to be learned from this myth, except to give a true rendering of it.
To do otherwise is to pretend that it is not mythical but true.

THe only thing we can learn from it is that whoever invented the story had an opinon about faith. If you shose to ignore the story because it does not match your picture of faith, then there are plenty more to chose from.

The story of Job may be complete and utter fiction as far as I know, but I can see a meaning in it. I am not particularly interested in why anyone in the twenty-first century has faith in The Bible as God's holy word, and I think of that as a question for sociologists and psychologists. I am interested in The Bible as literature.

Works of literature are sometimes reworked for the stage or film play, or have sequels and prequels added. Fiction is a way we express how the world seems to us and how it may be different.

I guess you are reading The Book of Job for its anthropological/historical source material in particular its "opinion about faith". This is also interesting .

Sadly people attach their personal opinions about a thing and try to give it credibity by selecting and reinterpreting some myth or other as if that brngs credibility to that opinion. Even more sadly there are those that are stupis enough to be taken in by such a strategy to the point where they are willing to put money in a collection plate.
Such are the follies of a weak minded civilisation

[Belindi]

What the author intended by the story, and what modern people can learn from the story are not the same. If the story of Job is morally relevant to post enlightenment men it's a story about justice and injustice, not a story about unquestioning faith.

What the author intended is also useful as an anthropological source that bears on beliefs of a people of that time and place.

There is nothing to be learned from this myth, except to give a true rendering of it.
To do otherwise is to pretend that it is not mythical but true.

THe only thing we can learn from it is that whoever invented the story had an opinon about faith. If you shose to ignore the story because it does not match your picture of faith, then there are plenty more to chose from.

The story of Job may be complete and utter fiction as far as I know, but I can see a meaning in it. I am not particularly interested in why anyone in the twenty-first century has faith in The Bible as God's holy word, and I think of that as a question for sociologists and psychologists. I am interested in The Bible as literature.

Works of literature are sometimes reworked for the stage or film play, or have sequels and prequels added. Fiction is a way we express how the world seems to us and how it may be different.

I guess you are reading The Book of Job for its anthropological/historical source material in particular its "opinion about faith". This is also interesting .

Sadly people attach their personal opinions about a thing and try to give it credibity by selecting and reinterpreting some myth or other as if that brngs credibility to that opinion. Even more sadly there are those that are stupis enough to be taken in by such a strategy to the point where they are willing to put money in a collection plate.
Such are the follies of a weak minded civilisation

Well that is not what I do. I use myths for my own purposes , not how some priest or politician says I ought to use them.

[Sy Borg]

Do you not also recognise natural evil such as befell Job?

So a storm, say, or a fire, or an earthquake, is a "natural evil"? Sorry, I can't see that.

Since evil is completely subjective, it's very possible for those who lost their homes or loved ones to a natural disaster to think of the event as evil.

Isn't 'evil' intentional?

They might blame God or Satan or demons or malevolent spirits. Humans (and other species) have long tended to assume agency in non-sentient phenomena.

[Sculptor1]

There is nothing to be learned from this myth, except to give a true rendering of it.
To do otherwise is to pretend that it is not mythical but true.

THe only thing we can learn from it is that whoever invented the story had an opinon about faith. If you shose to ignore the story because it does not match your picture of faith, then there are plenty more to chose from.

The story of Job may be complete and utter fiction as far as I know, but I can see a meaning in it. I am not particularly interested in why anyone in the twenty-first century has faith in The Bible as God's holy word, and I think of that as a question for sociologists and psychologists. I am interested in The Bible as literature.

Works of literature are sometimes reworked for the stage or film play, or have sequels and prequels added. Fiction is a way we express how the world seems to us and how it may be different.

I guess you are reading The Book of Job for its anthropological/historical source material in particular its "opinion about faith". This is also interesting .

Sadly people attach their personal opinions about a thing and try to give it credibity by selecting and reinterpreting some myth or other as if that brngs credibility to that opinion. Even more sadly there are those that are stupis enough to be taken in by such a strategy to the point where they are willing to put money in a collection plate.
Such are the follies of a weak minded civilisation

Well that is not what I do. I use myths for my own purposes , not how some priest or politician says I ought to use them.

So the first part I say, you in fact do?

[Belindi]

The story of Job may be complete and utter fiction as far as I know, but I can see a meaning in it. I am not particularly interested in why anyone in the twenty-first century has faith in The Bible as God's holy word, and I think of that as a question for sociologists and psychologists. I am interested in The Bible as literature.

Works of literature are sometimes reworked for the stage or film play, or have sequels and prequels added. Fiction is a way we express how the world seems to us and how it may be different.

I guess you are reading The Book of Job for its anthropological/historical source material in particular its "opinion about faith". This is also interesting .

Sadly people attach their personal opinions about a thing and try to give it credibity by selecting and reinterpreting some myth or other as if that brngs credibility to that opinion. Even more sadly there are those that are stupis enough to be taken in by such a strategy to the point where they are willing to put money in a collection plate.
Such are the follies of a weak minded civilisation

Well that is not what I do. I use myths for my own purposes , not how some priest or politician says I ought to use them.

So the first part I say, you in fact do?

I am not an advanced enough scholar to extract anthropological or historical info from any ancient text, unless I have reliable guidance. I do use some ancient texts for mining ideas like I'd do for any fiction , myth, or philosophy.

[Pattern-chaser]

Is it true there was a person called Job and that this is an accurate narrative of his life.
Yes or no?
If no, then this myth is not true.

Myths don't need to be true to have value. Oddly, you even quoted me on this, an answer I'd just offered to you, at the end of your post. Look, here it is:

The point of myth is not that it isn't true — some myths are, e.g., 'true' stories — but what can be learned from it. Sometimes, of course, there is nothing to be learned; a story is sometimes just a story, an entertainment. But other stories carry messages, some of them useful, others offer advice (like Aesop's fables, or Christian parables). But this topic is about God, not myth, so I'll leave my comment there.

[Sculptor1]

Is it true there was a person called Job and that this is an accurate narrative of his life.
Yes or no?
If no, then this myth is not true.

Myths don't need to be true to have value. Oddly, you even quoted me on this, an answer I'd just offered to you, at the end of your post. Look, here it is:

The point of myth is not that it isn't true — some myths are, e.g., 'true' stories — but what can be learned from it. Sometimes, of course, there is nothing to be learned; a story is sometimes just a story, an entertainment. But other stories carry messages, some of them useful, others offer advice (like Aesop's fables, or Christian parables). But this topic is about God, not myth, so I'll leave my comment there.

Myths teach us nothing, but the false credibility of another's opinion.
As I said..

Even more sadly there are those that are stupid enough to be taken in by such a strategy to the point where they are willing to put money in a collection plate.
Such are the follies of a weak minded civilisation.

[Pattern-chaser]

Is it true there was a person called Job and that this is an accurate narrative of his life.
Yes or no?
If no, then this myth is not true.

Myths don't need to be true to have value. Oddly, you even quoted me on this, an answer I'd just offered to you, at the end of your post. Look, here it is:

The point of myth is not that it isn't true — some myths are, e.g., 'true' stories — but what can be learned from it. Sometimes, of course, there is nothing to be learned; a story is sometimes just a story, an entertainment. But other stories carry messages, some of them useful, others offer advice (like Aesop's fables, or Christian parables). But this topic is about God, not myth, so I'll leave my comment there.

Myths teach us nothing, but the false credibility of another's opinion.

So Aesop's fables have no educational value? I won't ask you about Jesus' parables, but others have found, over the years, that they have educational value too. Many fairy stories teach social values and morals, even though they are mostly concerned with unicorns. I'm sure there are many other examples.

Are you sure that "myths teach us nothing"?