ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
That doesn't change the relevant passage at all.
God's visiting our ancestors guilt upon us, according to Exodus, still remains--which is the point of the OP.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are we responsible for the sins of our gr.-gr.-grandparents
- Thread starter ThePainefulTruth
- Start date
That doesn't change the relevant passage at all.
God's visiting our ancestors guilt upon us, according to Exodus, still remains--which is the point of the OP.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
We are not responsible for anyone sins, that is nothing but a childish belief system, nothing but to be laughed at.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
And exactly how did you conclude that Job was "perfect"?
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
It sounds fairly typical of the Old Testament God, not a pleasant character at all.
Tumah
Veteran Member
in circles you're going
You forgot the part about those who express love for Him.
Does He, really? It didn't happen with King Hezekiah....he was approved by Jehovah, although Ahaz, Hezekiah's father, was wicked! Many other examples, in the Bible, disproves this.
Maybe it's the children who are "those who hate me".
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
"There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil."-- Job1:1
Fairly typical of an invented god, yes.
Accusing the accuser eh?
Truth is the most referred to concept but the most ignored subject in need of study....ever.
Tumah
Veteran Member
Well, its just that, I've answered all your questions. But rather then rebut them, you're just starting the cycles of questions over again.
I understand that you're mass responding, so you're not really paying attention to the individual conversation flow between each person. But you can understand how that makes for poor debate quality, right?
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Do we answer for them? Yes. We are them aren't we?
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
It doesn't mean perfect in the way we would think.
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
I don't think so.
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
@Tumah has answered this.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Fortunately no, or we would be monkeys, or worse.
What then, in means "perfect" in some other way that fits with your theology? It's the old, When all else fails, putz with the definition ploy. In this case, God messed up when It used that word without qualifying it when inspiring the author of Job what to write. Either that or the Devil had one of his minions change God's Word later on.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Here's from the JPS: Job1[1]: "There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was whole-hearted and upright, and one that feared G-d, and shunned evil."
The Stone Edition Tanakh, which is the closest to the Hebrew, reads like this: "There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; that man was wholesome and upright, he feared God and shunned evil."
Job was never viewed in Judaism as being "perfect" as this was an attribute that only God has.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
The JPS first edition says that he was "blameless and upright", where blameless would certainly indicate, at the very least, morally perfect.
Of course this all raises the question, in disputes or contradictions between editions and translations, which is the final authority. If the later ones are correct, or more correct, what does that mean about the previous/other erroneous ones, which were once considered divinely inspired and sanctioned. And what about translations to come.
Of course this all raises the question, in disputes or contradictions between editions and translations, which is the final authority. If the later ones are correct, or more correct, what does that mean about the previous/other erroneous ones, which were once considered divinely inspired and sanctioned. And what about translations to come.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
No, it does not say "perfect", and I have never even read any Christian theologian that believes Job was without sin and, therefore, a "perfect" human.
Also, there long has been a question in Judaism whether the story of Job is a myth, which does not mean falsehood in this context, but refers to a narrative that is meant to be used as a teaching device. There's some very serious problems taking Job at the literal level, which has God gambling with Satan over whether Job can keep his faith but whereas some of his family is killed and then he has a serious infection that costs him his friends. Some might believe that God would do such a thing, but I certainly don't.
BTW, some historians believe that Job may be the oldest book in our canon.
Why is there God?
Natural trade-off. Either a simple brain, or a complex one able to introspect our own existence. The latter was more useful for our success and got selected. And it gave us spirituality to compensate the associated problems. Those things, including belief in god, are also naturally selected. Someone who believes these things can find purpose until it duplicates. And that was good enough. It worked nicely. At least, until now.
Yes. i also saw the Highlander (the movie),
The fountain of youth can get you only so far until thermodynamical death. When that strikes, that's it. There is no known escape from the second principle.
I know what some humans wrote about God. And that is all you know, too. Pending additional, independent, evidence that the God of the Bible, or any god made up by man, exists.
Yes. Of course. It is like undergoing a very painful operation that you know will make you new. In this case, not only new but it will turn you into the Master of the Universe. Or a third thereof. De facto.
I can think of a couple of politicians who will be happy to suffer a few whipping and a horrible execution unjustly, if that leads to such a certain end result.
In Italy thay say: the last who laughes, laughes better.
So, no big deal, really. I find it puzzling that you consider it a sacrifice at all. I think that jumping into dangerous waters to save a child, without certainty to survive or magically resurrect, is vastly more admirable.
Ciao
- viole
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
And you're surprised? They exercise their selective interpretation the same as you do. What does "blameless"? Yet most Christian Bibles render it as "perfect" which is a fair translation or rendering of blameless. I guess this goes back to how many biblical translations can dance on the head of a pin.
Surprise again. Wouldn't the fact that it's in question indicate that neither position has divine backing, since if one was correct, it would be the only one, and obvious.
Job IS certainly, obviously, allegory, not literal--but if that isn't indicated in the text, it would imply some deceit on God's part, letting his mouthpieces claim it is literal. The punchline of Job is where God says, "where were you when I created the universe"; "It's none of your business why I do things" (paraphrased). But that leaves us with a totally irrational relationship with God, or inability to make sense of things because they don't fit with what we're told in the Bible.
The reason some (priest or scribe) wrote the Book of Job is because they were tired of answering all the time the questions about why evil is rewarded and the good caused to suffer--which is not what was promised for those who followed the law.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
That's the only "Why?" there's no answer to. And you wouldn't expect one if God always was, iow, is timeless.
Because that comes with and defines full self-awareness, which is necessary for our moral free will because it enables our sense of right and wrong from that.
The fountain of youth can get you only so far until thermodynamical death. When that strikes, that's it. There is no known escape from the second principle.
I know what some humans wrote about God. And that is all you know, too. Pending additional, independent, evidence that the God of the Bible, or any god made up by man, exists.
Yes. Of course. It is like undergoing a very painful operation that you know will make you new. In this case, not only new but it will turn you into the Master of the Universe. Or a third thereof. De facto.
I can think of a couple of politicians who will be happy to suffer a few whipping and a horrible execution unjustly, if that leads to such a certain end result.
In Italy thay say: the last who laughes, laughes better.
So, no big deal, really. I find it puzzling that you consider it a sacrifice at all. I think that jumping into dangerous waters to save a child, without certainty to survive or magically resurrect, is vastly more admirable.
Ciao
- viole[/QUOTE]