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

[Fanman]

Fanman wrote:

I’m just going by what the scriptures say. If we take the “evil” that people do out of the world and consider the world in its most natural state could we call anything “evil”?

I see you recognise moral evil , as do I. Do you not also recognise natural evil such as befell Job?

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.

[Pattern-chaser]

If we take the “evil” that people do out of the world and consider the world in its most natural state could we call anything “evil”?

I would say not. And in this, I think we have reached agreement?

[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.

[Fanman]

If we take the “evil” that people do out of the world and consider the world in its most natural state could we call anything “evil”?

I would say not. And in this, I think we have reached agreement?

We certainly have.

[Belindi]

Fanman wrote:

I’m just going by what the scriptures say. If we take the “evil” that people do out of the world and consider the world in its most natural state could we call anything “evil”?

I see you recognise moral evil , as do I. Do you not also recognise natural evil such as befell Job?

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.

[Belindi]

Fanman wrote:

I’m just going by what the scriptures say. If we take the “evil” that people do out of the world and consider the world in its most natural state could we call anything “evil”?

I see you recognise moral evil , as do I. Do you not also recognise natural evil such as befell Job?

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.

Satan (Shaitan)is the name local tribespeople gave to events they could not account for except by imagining a trickster.

[Sculptor1]

Fanman wrote:



I see you recognise moral evil , as do I. Do you not also recognise natural evil such as befell Job?

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.

Satan (Shaitan)is the name local tribespeople gave to events they could not account for except by imagining a trickster.

Job's boils and all other culumnies he suffered were the direct result of a bet betwen God and his angel Satan. It was god's contention that whatever jokes they played on Job, his faith would never break.
Satan lost the bet.
Satan in this part of the myth is not the Devil or the Sperpent, who seem to be completely different personages entirely.

[Sculptor1]

Fanman wrote:

I’m just going by what the scriptures say. If we take the “evil” that people do out of the world and consider the world in its most natural state could we call anything “evil”?

I see you recognise moral evil , as do I. Do you not also recognise natural evil such as befell Job?

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

[Belindi]

Fanman wrote:



I see you recognise moral evil , as do I. Do you not also recognise natural evil such as befell Job?

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

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.

[JackDaydream]

Fanman wrote:



I see you recognise moral evil , as do I. Do you not also recognise natural evil such as befell Job?

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.

[Sculptor1]

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

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.

[Sculptor1]

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.

As god is supposedly the author of nature then the boils are exacly what god has intented to inflict upon Job.
It was the assumption of most persons (until very recently) that illness was directed at the wicked in punishement for sins.
If you want to let god off the hook then you might want to find a different god, as the story is crystal clear.
God and his Angel Satan have a joke on Job.

[JackDaydream]

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.

As god is supposedly the author of nature then the boils are exacly what god has intented to inflict upon Job.
It was the assumption of most persons (until very recently) that illness was directed at the wicked in punishement for sins.
If you want to let god off the hook then you might want to find a different god, as the story is crystal clear.
God and his Angel Satan have a joke on Job.

I read 'The Book of Job' in the OT after reading Jung's, 'Answer to Job'. In Jung's recasting of the story the nature of evil is seen within the interplay of opposites. He suggests the interplay of opposition of 'good' and 'evil', like the yin and yang as residing in 'God', or the human image of God and in human beings themselves, in their potential for 'good'' or destructiveness. It may not be possible to have what is perceived as good without its opposite, like birth and death, or Eros and Thanatos.

[Sculptor1]

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.

As god is supposedly the author of nature then the boils are exacly what god has intented to inflict upon Job.
It was the assumption of most persons (until very recently) that illness was directed at the wicked in punishement for sins.
If you want to let god off the hook then you might want to find a different god, as the story is crystal clear.
God and his Angel Satan have a joke on Job.

I read 'The Book of Job' in the OT after reading Jung's, 'Answer to Job'. In Jung's recasting of the story the nature of evil is seen within the interplay of opposites. He suggests the interplay of opposition of 'good' and 'evil', like the yin and yang as residing in 'God', or the human image of God and in human beings themselves, in their potential for 'good'' or destructiveness. It may not be possible to have what is perceived as good without its opposite, like birth and death, or Eros and Thanatos.

Poor fellow that JUng.

[JackDaydream]

Why was Jung a 'poor fellow'? He has some inner struggle, probably with his own 'dark side', but he spent his life as an adventurer of the human psyche. He had an interesting life of philosophical exploration.