From: chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris Blask)
Subject: Job and Fundamental Rationality
Reply-To: chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask)
Organization: Sea Change Corporation, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 20:11:54 GMT

>: >I remember hearing the Job story as a child, and asking how having
>: >new children replaced the ones that were killed.  Isn't that tale
>: >a frightening one to tell a child?  "You can be replaced."  The story
>: >was clearly written from a "women and kids are property" mentality,
>: >which is why it so sticks in our craw today.  And I believe this
>: >is a good illustration that the Bible was written by people who
>: >were thoroughly limited in their worldview, not by an omniscient
>: >entity who would have forseen the changes in people's views on
>: >personhood, rights, and property.
>:
>:      If we are going to hold up logic as the bulkhead of the attack on how
>: the bible doesn't make sense and God can't exists, then lets look at the 
>: whole story.
>:
>: So once again there is a stalemate.  I will beleive that Jobs family followed
>: God, went to heaven and Job ended up with twice the family he had before.
>:
>: You will beleive that God shorted Job.  You may beleive as you wish, but 
>| please watch the quantum leaps of logic.
>
>What "quantum leaps of logic"?  Jobs first ten children are dead.  How does 
>have new children replace the former children?
>-- 

Remember, life is cheap in the right context.  When you have Faith, you no
longer need to think: "Believe not your eyes, for they will mislead you..."

Why I like arguing religion so much is a mystery to me.  By accepting the
Bible (as one example), you forfeit your right to formulate logical
hypotheses.  Rational thought requires objectivity, which is fundamentally
forbidden in fundamental religions.  I think those that accept these
ideologies fight a constant battle between the mechanical logic of the
brain and the mortal fear of the heart, fulfilling the natural human need
for an answer to these questions and a shelter from the tragic reality of
entropy - while simultaneously searching frantically in that organ of
reason for the proper questions to match the answer they have bought.
Simple observations like the way we create a god in our image, the
geographical nature of religion, some shaky inconsistencies and outright
bushwah _cannot_ be accepted by the brain without compromising the heart.

In answer to the Job question, see 'The Brothers Karamozov', by
Dostoyevski.  A great example of this is sketched, where a ruler has a
child torn to pieces by dogs while the mother watches.  To take this to its
absolute limit, which is only fair, you must imagine a person performing
incredible acts of evil and violence on the most innocent, the newborn,
throughout a long and busy life.  On his deathbed, this person accepts
Jesus into his heart, and spends eternity in absolute bliss {and I _really
don't want to hear about 'stars in his crown' or the distance from his
throne to jesus'}.  Ivan (the secular one) says, and I second [paraphrased]: 
"It matters not if the spirit of the child forgives, nor if the mother forgives 
or even if God himself forgives: _I_ do not forgive."  As a being with free 
will, I choose to make my own decisions, and if my creator does not allow that, 
then off with him, I'll get by on my own.

Of course, I wouldn't believe in that kind of creator anyway.  As a general
sponge for knowledge, I would find it quite surprising if there were not,
indeed, a creator of some sorts.  I would find it many times more
surprising if that creator turned out to be anything like the pseudo-human
creature adopted by our major religions.

-chris blask

'just had to say it'


Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc