what i have never understood about the whole devil story is why it's scattered all over the old testament. the old testament is full of stories with beginnings, middles and ends--why is what is theoretically one of the most crucial stories veiled in metaphor and spread hither and yon? (please don't tell me it's because it's too important for "just anyone" to know.)
and how can i trust anyone's attempts to put the pieces together when they seem perfectly willing to make statements which are so blatantly untrue, like this (sorry, wordwolf, you just happened to give me the best example):
"He's referred to as a star...In fact, this is rendered nearly the same, or EXACTLY the same, as the title Jesus has at the end of Revelation."
how is "star of the morning" EXACTLY the same as "bright morning star?" not in english. what about in the original languages? well, "star of the morning" is one word in the hebrew, heylel. (in the kjv, that one word is translated "lucifer, son of the morning.") what does it mean? no one seems to agree EXACTLY. various "experts" say "lightbearer" or "shining one" or "daystar" or "morning star" or something along those lines. but "bright morning star" is THREE words in the greek, aster, lampros and proinos, meaning something like "shining (or resplendent) morning star."
my point is simply that THEY'RE NOT THE SAME. but they get put together by bible put-togetherers, just like all that other supposedly-about-lucifer stuff gets put together. and it just doesn't work for me.
maybe i'm silly, but i think GOD, THE CREATOR OF THE HEAVENS AND EARTH, should be able to do better than that.
i'm bringing this up to the top to reiterate my question. i've asked this here before and gotten nowhere. but i think it's a valid question. hey, wordwolf, it's not like you to shy away from an opportunity to explain things. how about explaining this?
I'm not trying to be contrary here, sprawled, but could it be the bible isn't god-breathed and/or doesn't necessarily fit like a hand in a glove etc...........
what i have never understood about the whole devil story is why it's scattered all over the old testament. the old testament is full of stories with beginnings, middles and ends--why is what is theoretically one of the most crucial stories veiled in metaphor and spread hither and yon? (please don't tell me it's because it's too important for "just anyone" to know.) and how can i trust anyone's attempts to put the pieces together when they seem perfectly willing to make statements which are so blatantly untrue...
Sprawled Out, I'm with you on the Devil topic scattered all over the place – it's like that on a lot of topics. It would be a whole lot easier if everything was organized by category or strict chronological order with some nifty God-breathed flow-charts and diagrams like a textbook or technical manual…Now I'm just thinking out loud here – not trying to explain or defend anything – just taking the Bible at face value. When you wondered why the Devil's story – seeing how it's one of the most crucial stories is veiled – I thought yeah that's true but there's also another crucial story veiled in the Old Testament – the details of how God was going to redeem man.
From my Christian perspective major aspects of both crucial stories are unveiled in the Gospels. In the Gospels we find literal fulfillment of prophecies scattered throughout the Old Testament that mention some little detail about the Messiah – where He would be born, things He would do, what He would suffer, etc. And in the Gospels you also have the greatest concentration of references to the Devil and his crew. Many of these references to the Devil are made by Jesus Himself or the Gospel writer in showing Jesus dealing directly with the Devil [as in Matthew 4 the temptation of Jesus Christ]. My impression is – as the details of God's plan literally unfolded before people's eyes [the Gospel period] – one aspect of His plan was to expose the Devil's covert operation.
It is challenging to try to put together the various topics of the Bible – that's what systematic theology tries to do. A good analogy I read in an Alister McGrath book likened systematic theology to botanists going into the field, picking lots of samples, then back at their Greenhouse grouping together the plants that THEY THINK should be together. Like your references to the other names for the Devil or passages in the Old Testament that may allude to him. Some may or may not fit. I don't know. The Gospels may not tell the whole story about the Devil – but I think they address the most crucial aspects of him – that he is a real creature that opposes God – and part of God's plan is the disruption and eventual destruction of the devil's kingdom by Jesus Christ.
my point is simply that THEY'RE NOT THE SAME. but they get put together by bible put-togetherers, just like all that other supposedly-about-lucifer stuff gets put together. and it just doesn't work for me.
thanks for your thoughtful response, t-bone. i do appreciate your taking the time. but as much as i used to get off on that 20/20 biblical hindsight stuff ("the new testament is the old testament revealed"), it just annoys me now. i think someone could probably put together a story to support almost anything by plucking the right pieces out of the OT. i'd just prefer it said what it wanted to say outright. as it is, it so readily lends itself to all that "secret knowledge for the initiated" crap, the same old elitism that religion seems to thrive on.
i know, i'm not god, and god can do it any way he wants. my problem is i can't ignore my brain's rational objections anymore. well, i could, but i won't. (so i didn't think you were being contrary at all, sushi. just logical.)
thanks for your thoughtful response, t-bone. i do appreciate your taking the time. but as much as i used to get off on that 20/20 biblical hindsight stuff ("the new testament is the old testament revealed"), it just annoys me now. i think someone could probably put together a story to support almost anything by plucking the right pieces out of the OT. i'd just prefer it said what it wanted to say outright. as it is, it so readily lends itself to all that "secret knowledge for the initiated" crap, the same old elitism that religion seems to thrive on.
i know, i'm not god, and god can do it any way he wants. my problem is i can't ignore my brain's rational objectionsanymore. well, i could, but i won't. (so i didn't think you were being contrary at all, sushi. just logical.) ...
You're welcome, Sprawled Out – and I would like to understand exactly what your objections are – and perhaps reiterate my point. I'm not looking to argue about anything but just want to get a better idea of your viewpoint…What are your rational objections to what's been discussed? Again, I'm not wanting to dispute your viewpoint – I'm just curious as to what you're looking for or expect to find. I got the impression from your first post you're wanting to understand the Devil's story – and in this post expressing annoyance over my take on the data in the Gospels and that the Bible isn't clear on this stuff. What specifically are your rational objections? Is it you believe there is a Devil but object to the data on him in the Bible or the way it's presented in the Bible, or perhaps the whole Bible is nonsense to you?
I beg to differ on your assessment of my post [boy, that sounds funny – "I disagree with your viewpoint of my viewpoint" ]. I stated the Gospels had the greatest concentration of references to the Devil – something that is gathered by merely reading them. Saying why that was so – was obviously my opinion [saying "From my Christian perspective"] – I didn't mean to imply I had 20/20 Biblical hindsight or that it is a truth only the initiated can understand. In everyone's viewpoint there are assumptions. An assumption of mine is that the Biblical data is true – I certainly don't understand it all – and some biblical topics are in a state of flux in my head – an on-going process of me thinking/praying/discussing with others - evolving if you will. It would be great if you would articulate some of your assumptions on this topic.
I'll step in and tell you mine if you don't mind, T-bone.
Perhaps I can say it a little more plainly than I origianlly did.
In a book with an overall theme of redemption, the devil is a character that does not appear to have had that opportunity and will not in the future. Now Allan claims, with nothing to back it up, that the Devil had the opportunity to repent and to be forgiven but didn't. It seems like an assumption that makes it fit for him.
Of course, the Bible is not a book for angels so perhaps they have their own book with it's own rules. This could be another assumption to make it fit.
But, here we are, little imperfect mortals, nowhere near as close to God as "his right-hand man" reading what many believe is the "rule book" on life and redemption and we see that God does not give his former glorious, beautiful, and brilliant of a right-hand angel the same chance at forgiveness and redeption that he claims to give us. See the problem?
What if the Devil did have the chance to repent and actually did. Where would we mortals be in reference to free will? We would be in the place that many say would not make God fair and just....with only the option of doing good, which would not really be an option at all. We would be in a place with no need for a redeemer and hence no Bible as we know it.
Of course, what if evil and the free will choice between it and Godliness and good has nothing to do with the Devil. He is blamed in the Bible and modern Christianity with tempting us and blamed for everything bad and evil in the world, yet he was himself tempted by....what? He chose to go against God. Today that might be considered "devilish," what was it then?
It would seem more plausible, that an all knowing God created evil as a choice and therefore created evil. It would seem logical, even with the story as it seems to be, that the free will choice between good and evil, godliness and ungodliness, would still be there even without the devil, just as it was before "the fall of Lucifer." So why is he blamed for all the wickedness in the world? Why does he not have the chance to repent and be forgiven? Why does he go from "the right-hand man" to all evil all the time? In my mind, he begins to look like a fall guy, a scape-goat and here all we have is "God's side of the story," which as pointed out isn't all that clear.
Would it not be more plausible that the Devil, even in the account of Jesus in the wilderness, is all just evil and wickedness personified? Perhaps, because that would then make the possibility of God just being goodness and perfection personified a plausible option as well.
That is my take, without getting into anything else, like the history of mythology.
True, but I was refering to the arguement that makes the point that God has to allow evil to exist or had to create the potential for evil to exist, because it would not be fair or just to only allow us to make good choices all the time. That would mean we would have no choice but to do his will since God is good. This would make him a dictator, more or less.
...Perhaps I can say it a little more plainly than I origianlly did.
In a book with an overall theme of redemption, the devil is a character that does not appear to have had that opportunity and will not in the future. Now Allan claims, with nothing to back it up, that the Devil had the opportunity to repent and to be forgiven but didn't. It seems like an assumption that makes it fit for him.
Of course, the Bible is not a book for angels so perhaps they have their own book with it's own rules. This could be another assumption to make it fit.
But, here we are, little imperfect mortals, nowhere near as close to God as "his right-hand man" reading what many believe is the "rule book" on life and redemption and we see that God does not give his former glorious, beautiful, and brilliant of a right-hand angel the same chance at forgiveness and redeption that he claims to give us. See the problem?
What if the Devil did have the chance to repent and actually did. Where would we mortals be in reference to free will? We would be in the place that many say would not make God fair and just....with only the option of doing good, which would not really be an option at all. We would be in a place with no need for a redeemer and hence no Bible as we know it.
Of course, what if evil and the free will choice between it and Godliness and good has nothing to do with the Devil. He is blamed in the Bible and modern Christianity with tempting us and blamed for everything bad and evil in the world, yet he was himself tempted by....what? He chose to go against God. Today that might be considered "devilish," what was it then?...
Thanks Lindy Hopper, maybe now I understand a little better from this and your post # 1 that you're sort of exploring some aspects/relationships of the Devil, free will, evil, and God…Boy, I've gotten in WAY OVER my head on this thread – but this is a fun thread to follow – don't think I've got anything of substance to contribute but I'll throw in my two cents worth of speculation.
I think you've got something there in saying God had to create the potential for evil. We're used to options and choices in this life – where to live, what to buy, what to do for work, etc. – I wonder what it was like in the distant past? Did God say "Here's the current eon's work roster: Lucifer's crew is on new dimensions maintenance, Gabriel's crew – technical documentation…and anyone not wishing to participate in my work program – you can go to …. to …… to …..hmmmmmmm – hang on a sec I'll think of somewhere." How ever this freewill was exercised I don't know but that the Devil and the other fallen angels did choose to rebel against God seems suggested by passages like I Timothy 3:6 "And not a new convert, lest he become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil." And Jude 6 "And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day."
Another thing Jude 6 brings up that's puzzling to me – the nature of angels. Was there something irreversible in their choice – that fixed their destiny – I know it's like comparing apples to oranges but I was thinking it may be similar to humans in Hebrews 9:27 "And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment" – so once they made their final choice – was it like there's no going back and starting over? [is there something in the nature of immortality that sealed their fate - like in Genesis 3:22 man kept from eating from the tree of life - would that somehow set him forever in an unredeemable state?] I tend to think redemption is not available for fallen angels – looking at Matthew 8:29 "And behold, they cried out, saying, 'What do we have to do with You, Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?'" – I get the idea the demons knew of their impending doom. Jesus' sacrificial death is portrayed as a means of salvation to mortals but as a means of disarmament to fallen angels, Colossians 2: 14,15 "having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through it."
I have GOT to find the article on the book of Job from a Jewish perspective! I've done a couple of searches, I just don't remember what word or phrase I was searching when I found it the first time.
Anyway, Lindy, you might really enjoy reading "Job" by Robert Heinlein (sp). It won't answer any doctrinal questions, but I think you will really like the irony of it!
'The human mind, no matter how great, is finite; i.e., its capacity for understanding and knowledge is limited. Hence, the concept of an infinite Being who possesses infinite wisdom and power can be confounding. In order to get a "grasp" on the Divine we require an approach that is familiar to our human experience. To this end G-d convenes His heavenly tribunal on the day known as Rosh Hashana. Certainly G-d does not require a court system in order to judge His mortal subjects. For us, however, the familiarity of a judicial proceeding can be a great benefit."
Yet G-d withholds His own judgment and allows for a nay-sayer who might indeed not be that persuasive to the members of "the board". . . . . . Understand, though, that satan is also an internal phenomenon, and has far deeper inner implications. He and the "yetzer harah" -- our so very human inclination to avoid G-dliness -- are said to be one and the same. Satan is thus that part of the "committee", if you will, that meets in our being each and every moment that we "convene" to make decisions.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
19
12
14
Popular Days
Oct 11
28
Oct 10
24
Oct 7
20
Oct 9
15
Top Posters In This Topic
Abigail 13 posts
Oakspear 19 posts
allan w. 12 posts
dancing 14 posts
Popular Days
Oct 11 2006
28 posts
Oct 10 2006
24 posts
Oct 7 2006
20 posts
Oct 9 2006
15 posts
allan w.
I KNEW IT, you old 'King of Tyre' you !!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha....foolish mortal!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Here's some interesting discussion from the catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sprawled out
i'm bringing this up to the top to reiterate my question. i've asked this here before and gotten nowhere. but i think it's a valid question. hey, wordwolf, it's not like you to shy away from an opportunity to explain things. how about explaining this?
thanks.
Edited by sprawled outLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
I'm not trying to be contrary here, sprawled, but could it be the bible isn't god-breathed and/or doesn't necessarily fit like a hand in a glove etc...........
Edited by SushiLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Sprawled Out, I'm with you on the Devil topic scattered all over the place – it's like that on a lot of topics. It would be a whole lot easier if everything was organized by category or strict chronological order with some nifty God-breathed flow-charts and diagrams like a textbook or technical manual…Now I'm just thinking out loud here – not trying to explain or defend anything – just taking the Bible at face value. When you wondered why the Devil's story – seeing how it's one of the most crucial stories is veiled – I thought yeah that's true but there's also another crucial story veiled in the Old Testament – the details of how God was going to redeem man.
From my Christian perspective major aspects of both crucial stories are unveiled in the Gospels. In the Gospels we find literal fulfillment of prophecies scattered throughout the Old Testament that mention some little detail about the Messiah – where He would be born, things He would do, what He would suffer, etc. And in the Gospels you also have the greatest concentration of references to the Devil and his crew. Many of these references to the Devil are made by Jesus Himself or the Gospel writer in showing Jesus dealing directly with the Devil [as in Matthew 4 the temptation of Jesus Christ]. My impression is – as the details of God's plan literally unfolded before people's eyes [the Gospel period] – one aspect of His plan was to expose the Devil's covert operation.
It is challenging to try to put together the various topics of the Bible – that's what systematic theology tries to do. A good analogy I read in an Alister McGrath book likened systematic theology to botanists going into the field, picking lots of samples, then back at their Greenhouse grouping together the plants that THEY THINK should be together. Like your references to the other names for the Devil or passages in the Old Testament that may allude to him. Some may or may not fit. I don't know. The Gospels may not tell the whole story about the Devil – but I think they address the most crucial aspects of him – that he is a real creature that opposes God – and part of God's plan is the disruption and eventual destruction of the devil's kingdom by Jesus Christ.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
good point sprawled and also t-bone
try checking out progressive theology
some guy name Whitehead.
It'll come up as he's a math guy.
Anyway lots to think about here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sprawled out
thanks for your thoughtful response, t-bone. i do appreciate your taking the time. but as much as i used to get off on that 20/20 biblical hindsight stuff ("the new testament is the old testament revealed"), it just annoys me now. i think someone could probably put together a story to support almost anything by plucking the right pieces out of the OT. i'd just prefer it said what it wanted to say outright. as it is, it so readily lends itself to all that "secret knowledge for the initiated" crap, the same old elitism that religion seems to thrive on.
i know, i'm not god, and god can do it any way he wants. my problem is i can't ignore my brain's rational objections anymore. well, i could, but i won't. (so i didn't think you were being contrary at all, sushi. just logical.)
dancing--i'll check out that whitehead guy. thx.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
You're welcome, Sprawled Out – and I would like to understand exactly what your objections are – and perhaps reiterate my point. I'm not looking to argue about anything but just want to get a better idea of your viewpoint…What are your rational objections to what's been discussed? Again, I'm not wanting to dispute your viewpoint – I'm just curious as to what you're looking for or expect to find. I got the impression from your first post you're wanting to understand the Devil's story – and in this post expressing annoyance over my take on the data in the Gospels and that the Bible isn't clear on this stuff. What specifically are your rational objections? Is it you believe there is a Devil but object to the data on him in the Bible or the way it's presented in the Bible, or perhaps the whole Bible is nonsense to you?
I beg to differ on your assessment of my post [boy, that sounds funny – "I disagree with your viewpoint of my viewpoint"
]. I stated the Gospels had the greatest concentration of references to the Devil – something that is gathered by merely reading them. Saying why that was so – was obviously my opinion [saying "From my Christian perspective"] – I didn't mean to imply I had 20/20 Biblical hindsight or that it is a truth only the initiated can understand. In everyone's viewpoint there are assumptions. An assumption of mine is that the Biblical data is true – I certainly don't understand it all – and some biblical topics are in a state of flux in my head – an on-going process of me thinking/praying/discussing with others - evolving if you will. It would be great if you would articulate some of your assumptions on this topic.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
2 Corinthians 10:5 springs to mind..."casting down IMAGINATIONS and every HIGH thing that exalts itself against the NATURE of God"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I'll step in and tell you mine if you don't mind, T-bone.
Perhaps I can say it a little more plainly than I origianlly did.
In a book with an overall theme of redemption, the devil is a character that does not appear to have had that opportunity and will not in the future. Now Allan claims, with nothing to back it up, that the Devil had the opportunity to repent and to be forgiven but didn't. It seems like an assumption that makes it fit for him.
Of course, the Bible is not a book for angels so perhaps they have their own book with it's own rules. This could be another assumption to make it fit.
But, here we are, little imperfect mortals, nowhere near as close to God as "his right-hand man" reading what many believe is the "rule book" on life and redemption and we see that God does not give his former glorious, beautiful, and brilliant of a right-hand angel the same chance at forgiveness and redeption that he claims to give us. See the problem?
What if the Devil did have the chance to repent and actually did. Where would we mortals be in reference to free will? We would be in the place that many say would not make God fair and just....with only the option of doing good, which would not really be an option at all. We would be in a place with no need for a redeemer and hence no Bible as we know it.
Of course, what if evil and the free will choice between it and Godliness and good has nothing to do with the Devil. He is blamed in the Bible and modern Christianity with tempting us and blamed for everything bad and evil in the world, yet he was himself tempted by....what? He chose to go against God. Today that might be considered "devilish," what was it then?
It would seem more plausible, that an all knowing God created evil as a choice and therefore created evil. It would seem logical, even with the story as it seems to be, that the free will choice between good and evil, godliness and ungodliness, would still be there even without the devil, just as it was before "the fall of Lucifer." So why is he blamed for all the wickedness in the world? Why does he not have the chance to repent and be forgiven? Why does he go from "the right-hand man" to all evil all the time? In my mind, he begins to look like a fall guy, a scape-goat and here all we have is "God's side of the story," which as pointed out isn't all that clear.
Would it not be more plausible that the Devil, even in the account of Jesus in the wilderness, is all just evil and wickedness personified? Perhaps, because that would then make the possibility of God just being goodness and perfection personified a plausible option as well.
That is my take, without getting into anything else, like the history of mythology.
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
kind of like JC huh
I don't buy the general definition and story of the devil by 'christianity'.
Also just because there is no evil doesn't mean there is no choices.
There's lots of good choices....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
True, but I was refering to the arguement that makes the point that God has to allow evil to exist or had to create the potential for evil to exist, because it would not be fair or just to only allow us to make good choices all the time. That would mean we would have no choice but to do his will since God is good. This would make him a dictator, more or less.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
And this all depends on where God is wouldn't it?
And everything else spirituallt related.
Is God something out side of ourselves, as well as what many call the 'devil'?
And if he is not outside of ourselves, and not just you and I, then who is the dictator?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
What does every person on the planet that ever was, will be and is now share?
What is the devil?
that's the question I reckon.
What is God?
To see God one can also see the devil.
and both for what they truly are.
A small glimpse or glance is only a part.
Which we all can see a part.
Listening to others helps us to see more of what this God is.
As you probably figured,
I believe God is within.
The kingdom of God is within.
Well that's pretty darn big.
Takes more then a few verses and word studies to see.
Though these things will help, even if these things haven't been done.
He is still there, silent, waiting for silence to be heard.
A whisper can be a shout and a shout a whisper...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Thanks Lindy Hopper, maybe now I understand a little better from this and your post # 1 that you're sort of exploring some aspects/relationships of the Devil, free will, evil, and God…Boy, I've gotten in WAY OVER my head on this thread – but this is a fun thread to follow – don't think I've got anything of substance to contribute but I'll throw in my two cents worth of speculation.
I think you've got something there in saying God had to create the potential for evil. We're used to options and choices in this life – where to live, what to buy, what to do for work, etc. – I wonder what it was like in the distant past? Did God say "Here's the current eon's work roster: Lucifer's crew is on new dimensions maintenance, Gabriel's crew – technical documentation…and anyone not wishing to participate in my work program – you can go to …. to …… to …..hmmmmmmm – hang on a sec I'll think of somewhere." How ever this freewill was exercised I don't know but that the Devil and the other fallen angels did choose to rebel against God seems suggested by passages like I Timothy 3:6 "And not a new convert, lest he become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil." And Jude 6 "And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day."
Another thing Jude 6 brings up that's puzzling to me – the nature of angels. Was there something irreversible in their choice – that fixed their destiny – I know it's like comparing apples to oranges but I was thinking it may be similar to humans in Hebrews 9:27 "And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment" – so once they made their final choice – was it like there's no going back and starting over? [is there something in the nature of immortality that sealed their fate - like in Genesis 3:22 man kept from eating from the tree of life - would that somehow set him forever in an unredeemable state?] I tend to think redemption is not available for fallen angels – looking at Matthew 8:29 "And behold, they cried out, saying, 'What do we have to do with You, Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?'" – I get the idea the demons knew of their impending doom. Jesus' sacrificial death is portrayed as a means of salvation to mortals but as a means of disarmament to fallen angels, Colossians 2: 14,15 "having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through it."
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
Everything you need to know about the devil is explained in the movie, Dogma.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Satan and the OT deity's intercourse at the beginning of the Book of Job is pretty strange.
God: Hey Satan, long time no see. what have u been up to?
Satan: Eh, running all over the place 'n stuff...
God: Hey! Check out Job over there. Isn't he one heck of a righteous fellow?
Satan: Ha! Gimme a break - that gimp? I'll bet you over a couple shots of Soma
that after a few days with me, he'll turn on you and bite you on the a$$!!!
God: GAW-FAW!!! (slapping thunderous thighs, wiping out remote coastal villages in the Orient in the process)
You're on!
I got to pick up a copy of Jung's Letter to Job sometime soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I have GOT to find the article on the book of Job from a Jewish perspective! I've done a couple of searches, I just don't remember what word or phrase I was searching when I found it the first time.
Anyway, Lindy, you might really enjoy reading "Job" by Robert Heinlein (sp). It won't answer any doctrinal questions, but I think you will really like the irony of it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VeganXTC
Abigail, I found this: http://www.torah.org/learning/iyov/
I'm sure its not what you're looking for, but maybe it will spark your memory. I'm excited to hear what your article says.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Thanks, Vegan. I didn't find the one I was looking for yet, but I did find one that is very relevant to this thread.
The entire article can be found HERE
I will post a few excerpts:
'The human mind, no matter how great, is finite; i.e., its capacity for understanding and knowledge is limited. Hence, the concept of an infinite Being who possesses infinite wisdom and power can be confounding. In order to get a "grasp" on the Divine we require an approach that is familiar to our human experience. To this end G-d convenes His heavenly tribunal on the day known as Rosh Hashana. Certainly G-d does not require a court system in order to judge His mortal subjects. For us, however, the familiarity of a judicial proceeding can be a great benefit."
And another excerpt from HERE
Yet G-d withholds His own judgment and allows for a nay-sayer who might indeed not be that persuasive to the members of "the board". . . . . . Understand, though, that satan is also an internal phenomenon, and has far deeper inner implications. He and the "yetzer harah" -- our so very human inclination to avoid G-dliness -- are said to be one and the same. Satan is thus that part of the "committee", if you will, that meets in our being each and every moment that we "convene" to make decisions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
So perhaps Job was really talking to himself?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.