An Introduction to Job

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

An Introduction to Job

Postby alyoshka » Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:05 am

Fear of God is a central concept in Biblical philosophy. When considering what it means it is worth looking at the first instance of fear in the Bible: When God shows up after Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledge.

With God's presence Adam says "I was afraid because I was naked and so I hid." Here Adam's fear of God is tightly wound with his fear of being naked. Indeed, Adam was so afraid of being exposed to God that he took cover to quiet his fear. The fear was too much for him. He could not let the fear of being naked achieve the intensity that can only be felt as we stand before God in the nude. When the Almighty Himself looks upon us and judges our quality.

And that's just what I hope to draw from this scene and to apply to Job: Fearing God is the kind of fear that we can only feel in exposure, or when we are exposed. Fear of God is only achieved by standing naked before God because that's exactly what it is: fearing and trusting in God as our covering. It is putting all of our faith in God, putting ourselves out there fully, even though we are scared shitless.

To see the traction of this thinking it is worth considering Job, who is said to be impeccable in his fear of God. If we do so we see that instead of hiding and distrusting God Job persists in his nudity. Job says "Naked I came into this world and naked I will go. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away." Job lets his fear of being naked rage. Instead of calming it by hiding or covering himself Job abides by standing naked before all, God included.

The question is, where does Job go wrong?

It is not in his fear of God that Job goes wrong but in his shame. Job doesn't run and hide like Adam but like Adam Job feels shame. He looks upon himself and is disgusted by what he sees.

Unlike the ostrich that flaps its wings with joy Job complains about his condition.

The point of all this? Standing naked before God is not enough. Fear of God is not enough. It is critical that we fear God and persist in our naked fear/trust but more than this we must take joy in our nudity. We are not to be ashamed of ourselves but rather we are to take pride. Even if our wings pale next to the wings of the stork.
alyoshka
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:52 am

Re: An Introduction to Job

Postby anon » Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:45 pm

Judith Lief wrote:Fear is a very tricky thing. Sometimes we put up a pretense of virtue, but really we're afraid of being bad. Are our good deeds true virtue or just fear?

source

I like the themes you've presented - nakedness, fear, shame... these things often completely define our lives. If we can come to grips with these, I believe we can live well. We can live fully.

Dostoevsky's characters are sometimes physically bent, or contorted. I think our minds can likewise be contorted. Perhaps we can only experience spirituality when we have a good "inner posture". Bad posture and inability to make eye contact often results from fear and shame. Doesn't it say in the Bible that nobody has ever seen God's face?
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8251
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: An Introduction to Job

Postby alyoshka » Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:58 am

anon wrote:Doesn't it say in the Bible that nobody has ever seen God's face?


Not sure if it says this outright but the theme is alive. God would only show Moses His backside for instance in the fear that he might die if he saw God's face. Job says that he sees God but it is unclear if he sees God face to face. Jacob wrestles with God and so would presumably see God's face but it could only be in a dream.

There is Adam, however, who presumably saw God face to face, and not in a dream. There is no indication that he didn't see God's face at least, even though it isn't explicitly said that he did. And Adam, at least until he sinned, had no real reason to feel ashamed and to avoid God's eye...

There is this lasting feeling of shame though, since Adam, which makes it harder for us to do so. Throughout human history there is a lot to be ashamed of, and that we should feel ashamed of. Nevertheless we must not think that we can't look God in the eye. In truth we are called to do so.

Not just to overcome our shame but to affirm our majesty as children of God.
alyoshka
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:52 am

Re: An Introduction to Job

Postby Moreno » Thu Feb 02, 2012 2:00 am

alyoshka wrote:The point of all this? Standing naked before God is not enough. Fear of God is not enough. It is critical that we fear God and persist in our naked fear/trust but more than this we must take joy in our nudity. .

REsponding as a no longer Christian, I don't see why we need to assume fear of God is a good thing. (though give what has gone on in the universe up until now, it is not surprising one would feel fear of a God who made the world this way. Hopefully both sides can grow out of this.)

Unlike the ostrich that flaps its wings with joy Job complains about his condition.
This is an odd thought. I am sure the ostrich 'complains' in its own way when it has something to complain about, and in those instances the ostrich does not flap its wings with joy.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: An Introduction to Job

Postby alyoshka » Thu Feb 02, 2012 2:18 am

Moreno wrote:REsponding as a no longer Christian, I don't see why we need to assume fear of God is a good thing.


I'm sure you can if translated to secular terms. Think of it as humility even. Can you see why that might be a good thing? Being mindful of powers out there that are greater than us? Spirits that are wiser and more loving?

It's a posture that prepares us for what we ought to become, whether Christian or not.
alyoshka
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:52 am

Re: An Introduction to Job

Postby Moreno » Thu Feb 02, 2012 2:26 am

alyoshka wrote:]I'm sure you can if translated to secular terms
I'm not secular or only secular.
Think of it as humility even. Can you see why that might be a good thing?
Humility in the sense of being willing to notice one's current limitations, sure. I don't think being humble, as this is generally conceived is positive.

Being mindful of powers out there that are greater than us?
Of course, but most powers I do not trust and for good reasons.
Spirits that are wiser and more loving?
No, I don't think fearing these is something that should be considered good, a goal or a permanent state.

It's a posture that prepares us for what we ought to become, whether Christian or not.
Frankly, I'd appreciate awe, respect, admiration much more. There is no need to even compare myself as a whole being with the other being. I can be humbled by creatures that supposedly humans are superior too and not just around physical prowess. There is no need to have a humble concept of myself that I compare or create through comparison with some other being. Being stunned by the good or great qualities of another being of any kind, need not have this 'I am little' 'I am smaller' quality to it. 'Wow, that's amazing' is enough. And sure, an awareness on occasion that I cannot do this or that now.

Religions have long responded to the problem of evil with rules about how fear of God is a good thing. Humans have also tried to avoid what they think is the wrath of God by being humble. We have a bunch of spiritual tricks - attitudinal - that we have tried as a way to protect ourselves. As ways to get to Heaven or avoid punishment or banishment. I think there are very much parallel to the rules of behavior traumatized children develop in relation to their parents and then other adults.

We need to get underneath these and see if they are really necessary or no real relation with God will be possible.

Note: I edited my previous post, perhaps after you read it.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: An Introduction to Job

Postby alyoshka » Thu Feb 02, 2012 2:57 am

Moreno wrote:I can be humbled by creatures that supposedly humans are superior to and not just around physical prowess.


Then you can see the importance of humility, and of fearing God insofar as it is a humble posture. Part of it is being open to precisely what you describe, or to recognizing our insufficiencies and how others excel.

It's a difference that enables us to progress.

Moreno wrote:Being stunned by the good or great qualities of another being of any kind, need not have this 'I am little' 'I am smaller' quality to it. 'Wow, that's amazing' is enough. And sure, an awareness on occasion that I cannot do this or that now.


You're right, fearing God need not come with this feeling. My point in the OP in fact is that we should not feel this way, and that Job especially should not feel this way. Instead we should take pride and joy in ourselves.
alyoshka
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:52 am

Re: An Introduction to Job

Postby Moreno » Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:50 am

alyoshka wrote:Then you can see the importance of humility
No, not really. I was shifting the word, to show that it has nothing to do with relative greatness. Being humble is generally looked at as having a restrained self-image, if not something more reducing, like thinking oneself small. I have no need for that, really, in relation to animals, babies, oceans, deities. I can react to them without having an ongoing attitude about myself. I need not have a restrained self-evaluation.
I deliberately used humble in a situation where one does not, generally, consider oneself, as a whole less than the other. In the end, I think we are better off without the word humble, especially as a goal.

, and of fearing God insofar as it is a humble posture.
There is no need to fear a loving parent.
Part of it is being open to precisely what you describe, or to recognizing our insufficiencies and how others excel.
But these do not need to be coupled. I can have the same reaction to an artist or musician who does something I love that I would not have done - perhaps I could, perhaps not, who knows. I don't need to compare myself to have a full appreciation for someone else.

Humility includes this idea of thinking oneself less, as if this was necessary to appreciate or respect the other.

And fear...that's a sign there is a problem.

Moreno wrote:Being stunned by the good or great qualities of another being of any kind, need not have this 'I am little' 'I am smaller' quality to it. 'Wow, that's amazing' is enough. And sure, an awareness on occasion that I cannot do this or that now.

You're right, fearing God need not come with this feeling. My point in the OP in fact is that we should not feel this way, and that Job especially should not feel this way. Instead we should take pride and joy in ourselves.
[/quote]But it seemed like, at the end of your OP, you were suggesting that we both fear and trust, that both are necessary.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: An Introduction to Job

Postby alyoshka » Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:32 pm

Moreno wrote:
alyoshka wrote:
Then you can see the importance of humility

No, not really. I was shifting the word, to show that it has nothing to do with relative greatness. Being humble is generally looked at as having a restrained self-image, if not something more reducing, like thinking oneself small. I have no need for that, really, in relation to animals, babies, oceans, deities. I can react to them without having an ongoing attitude about myself. I need not have a restrained self-evaluation.
I deliberately used humble in a situation where one does not, generally, consider oneself, as a whole less than the other. In the end, I think we are better off without the word humble, especially as a goal.


I still think we're on the same page more or less! I don't want humility as the goal. I certainly don't want us to always think of ourselves as lesser. Also, humility is not a replacement for fear of God, which is much richer in its meaning I think. I shouldn't have confused the situation, or my own views, by translating it into humility.

Fear of God is better left as I tried to express it in the OP, as the fear that we can only feel as we stand naked (before God).

Moreno wrote:There is no need to fear a loving parent.


To stand naked before a loving parent takes fear and trust. Both at the same time. Fear, because we never really know what to expect. Trust, because we trust them to do what is right. Or to respond to us in a way that is right.

The more we experience good results the more the fear will diminish and the trust will change, becoming less trust and more assurance and confidence in our nudity.

Have you read the book of Job? This is the problem at the beginning of the book, or why the satan doubts Job. He thinks that God's "fence" around Job has made it easy for Job to fear God. That God's fence has taken the fear out of fearing God. Hence the satan wants the fence removed so as to put the fear back into fearing God and to really test Job's mettle.

Moreno wrote:But it seemed like, at the end of your OP, you were suggesting that we both fear and trust, that both are necessary.


Hopefully the above example shows why, or how, both fear and trust are at play. And don't get me wrong: I think our fear of God is meant to dissolve over time, as we become more and more assured of God's ways and confident in our nudity, just as Job was before his testing.

(But this still only remains the half of it though, this posture of fearing-->trusting God. The other half, or what I really wanted to pronounce in my OP even if it was confused, or I was confused on certain details, is that this is not enough. That this is just the beginning (of wisdom). Fearing/trusting God puts us in a position of pretty extreme dependence (and humility!) even as it allows our confidence to build. The next step is really taking pride in ourselves. More than this it is fulfilling our calling to image God, so that God can fear-->trust us as well.)
alyoshka
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:52 am

Re: An Introduction to Job

Postby Amorphos » Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:53 pm

Eating from the tree of knowledge and standing naked before God, could be seen as a kind of self recognition. Through our lives we gain extra depth to this, where a dog would see its reflection in the mirror and think its another dog, humans understand ‘this is who we are and what we have done’.

The Chinese man who drives a BMW which isn’t a BMW but a fraudulently made version of it, may be driving along in his car thinking how great his life is. Then one day he will suddenly feel like he’s driving a stolen car and feel naked and dirty to that truth. He will consider all the work that went into the original and know that the copy has given nothing to those who done the work, who thought out all the problems and resolved them.

In many ways life is like the layers of an onion, with each ‘revelation’ we strip back another layer and get closer to the core truth.
Formerly; quetzalcoatl
the truth is naked,
once it is written it is lost.
genius is the result of the entire product of man.
righteousness itself is divisive.
User avatar
Amorphos
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4339
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: Chillin` to the blue note somewhere's aroun`

Re: An Introduction to Job

Postby Dan~ » Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:28 pm

I believe that "fear of god" has more sinister origins.
Some people can say how it's positive, but it's not positive.
Fear or derivatives of fear are not forms of true respect or humility, they are based in danger and suppression.
:character-cookiemonster: ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8651
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: An Introduction to Job

Postby Amorphos » Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:53 am

Perhaps a more enlightened approach would be to say that, we fear how god would perceive our nakedness. The iniquities in our hearts and the recognition of self as compared to how we perceive god to be, or how we think he would view us. How can whatever we are be pure enough to transcend the world and enter heaven ~ when we see ourselves as the world [or of it].
Formerly; quetzalcoatl
the truth is naked,
once it is written it is lost.
genius is the result of the entire product of man.
righteousness itself is divisive.
User avatar
Amorphos
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4339
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: Chillin` to the blue note somewhere's aroun`

Re: An Introduction to Job

Postby Calrid » Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:09 am

Dan~ wrote:I believe that "fear of god" has more sinister origins.
Some people can say how it's positive, but it's not positive.
Fear or derivatives of fear are not forms of true respect or humility, they are based in danger and suppression.


Quite but then aren't they a product of simpler times. How can you judge them with your world weary conventional views. How can you not. Gods message should be timeless, I believe man and man alone wrote the bible, if God does exist he was foolish enough to let them, blasphemous as that is.

Job makes little sense to a sophisticated person, he's asking Satan to give Job trials to see if he is worthy of his piousness and purity of faith before God, why on Earth would you bother, being God, you already know his worth. And yes this might be to teach people that ultimately God is right always, but then that's already intrinsic to your faith? What need of trite stories when the truth is already known? I personally think Job shows a side of God that is not as perfect as it is in later stories, it is after all the oldest of the book of the bible; it clearly reveals a religion that goes from almost omniscience to always perfectly omniscient. I have to wonder why, and I have to think that is because of the way religion tends to work for people, without absolutes things get controversial. Our father who art in heaven hallowed be his claim.

And that's just what I hope to draw from this scene and to apply to Job: Fearing God is the kind of fear that we can only feel in exposure, or when we are exposed. Fear of God is only achieved by standing naked before God because that's exactly what it is: fearing and trusting in God as our covering. It is putting all of our faith in God, putting ourselves out there fully, even though we are scared shitless.


If God is perfect there should be no need to test anyone. God already knows all, and wasting your time teaching people who should already know he cannot be tested or wrong about anything ever, see x and y OT, is banal.
Last edited by Calrid on Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”

Oscar Wilde - probably.
User avatar
Calrid
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:54 am

Re: An Introduction to Job

Postby Amorphos » Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:18 am

The inner voice is most probably purely internal, so weather or not God exists religion is about how we see ourselves as compared to divinity. One may in contemplation arrive at an idea that God exists, then the inner voice is a separate process comparing things to however we see god, or think he would act morally. Even if we thought God didn’t say anything to us, we may still assume a comparative ~ we’d still wonder what we had to do to please the non-present father - so to say.

Is there no need to test ourselves?
Formerly; quetzalcoatl
the truth is naked,
once it is written it is lost.
genius is the result of the entire product of man.
righteousness itself is divisive.
User avatar
Amorphos
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4339
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: Chillin` to the blue note somewhere's aroun`

Re: An Introduction to Job

Postby James S Saint » Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:33 am

It seems to me the final lesson to be gained from the story (regardless of the many within) is basically, "If you can't beat them, join them".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 14752
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: An Introduction to Job

Postby alyoshka » Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:30 pm

quetzalcoatl wrote:Perhaps a more enlightened approach would be to say that, we fear how god would perceive our nakedness. The iniquities in our hearts and the recognition of self as compared to how we perceive god to be, or how we think he would view us. How can whatever we are be pure enough to transcend the world and enter heaven ~ when we see ourselves as the world [or of it].


That's right! Fear of God is something that can only be experienced in nudity. Or by not hiding. (Someone who says they fear God while filling a storehouse with supplies is a liar.)

Not sure how to take your last comment though. Are you suggesting that we should not see ourselves as being of the world?

In regards to this it is worth noting that Job arises as dust. He does not in any way deny his worldliness but rather he proudly reveals it and revels in it.
alyoshka
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:52 am

Re: An Introduction to Job

Postby Amorphos » Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:07 pm

Not sure how to take your last comment though. Are you suggesting that we should not see ourselves as being of the world?


Is divinity/heaven the same as the world? Is god the earth or something beyond the physical, as are our souls, no. this is where I get confused with Christian philosophy, what kind of spirituality does the earth yield? Can we after the resurrection live forever here, wont we over populate etc, etc. For me the earth is evolution, it is cyclic and brings death to its children, it is the devil ~ in a kind of templar manner.

In regards to this it is worth noting that Job arises as dust. He does not in any way deny his worldliness but rather he proudly reveals it and revels in it.


Arises as dust? that’s fascinating I wonder how that is meant.
Formerly; quetzalcoatl
the truth is naked,
once it is written it is lost.
genius is the result of the entire product of man.
righteousness itself is divisive.
User avatar
Amorphos
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4339
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: Chillin` to the blue note somewhere's aroun`

Re: An Introduction to Job

Postby alyoshka » Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:31 am

quetzalcoatl wrote:Is divinity/heaven the same as the world?


I don't think these are separable if that's what you mean. Heaven is on earth. The Heavenly City descends to earth. We do not simply ascend to the Heavenly City.

quetzalcoatl wrote:Is god the earth or something beyond the physical, as are our souls, no. this is where I get confused with Christian philosophy, what kind of spirituality does the earth yield? Can we after the resurrection live forever here, wont we over populate etc, etc.


With God all things are possible.

quetzalcoatl wrote:For me the earth is evolution, it is cyclic and brings death to its children, it is the devil ~ in a kind of templar manner.


The earth is your home. It's what you're made of. It can be a positive force so long as it is treated and channeled positively. It is powerful though and can certainly bring death to those who are unequal to it.

quetzalcoatl wrote:Arises as dust? that’s fascinating I wonder how that is meant.


The passage is 42:6, typically rendered as Job repenting in dust and ashes. I think a better or fuller rendering is that Job is consoled about dust and ashes and that Job arises as and from dust and ashes.

He does not cease to be dust but rather he is dust more confidently. Like the ostrich, Job is now proud of his wings.
alyoshka
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:52 am

Re: An Introduction to Job

Postby Amorphos » Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:32 pm

I don't think these are separable if that's what you mean. Heaven is on earth. The Heavenly City descends to earth. We do not simply ascend to the Heavenly City.


There would need to be something near to a total transformation of earth to make it heaven; would that still be earth?
I mean if you get rid of death and disease etc, then you get rid of what life is about and hence what the world is about.

With God all things are possible.


Lets assume that’s true, to prevent overcrowding he would need to grow the planet endlessly, and change the laws of physics so it doesn’t get to heavy and become a black hole etc. …I am using extremes in order to take the argument to potentials.

The earth is your home. It's what you're made of.


I’d say I am mind and that is not physical, hence earth is not what my soul is made of.

The passage is 42:6, typically rendered as Job repenting in dust and ashes. I think a better or fuller rendering is that Job is consoled about dust and ashes and that Job arises as and from dust and ashes.


I have been contemplating something recently which may be similar; the thoughts are kinda like my earthly form is concerned about its mortality, but I have to remind it that it is physical, it has never lived and had consciousness. To it they are illusions that it cannot even know, because the only thing about the dust that thinks is not of the dust.

Perhaps job thought the opposite to that? In other words, the dust is the thinker.

doesn’t make sense to me, thats like saying rocks think?
Formerly; quetzalcoatl
the truth is naked,
once it is written it is lost.
genius is the result of the entire product of man.
righteousness itself is divisive.
User avatar
Amorphos
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4339
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: Chillin` to the blue note somewhere's aroun`

Re: An Introduction to Job

Postby alyoshka » Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:28 am

quetzalcoatl wrote:There would need to be something near to a total transformation of earth to make it heaven; would that still be earth?
I mean if you get rid of death and disease etc, then you get rid of what life is about and hence what the world is about.


Why on earth would you think that life is about death and disease? That's not what life is.

quetzalcoatl wrote:Lets assume that’s true, to prevent overcrowding he would need to grow the planet endlessly, and change the laws of physics so it doesn’t get to heavy and become a black hole etc. …I am using extremes in order to take the argument to potentials.


Water into wine. The realm of possibility expands. That's what it means: with God all things are possible because with God new things are possible.

Stop confining yourself to what is possible right now.

quetzalcoatl wrote:I’d say I am mind and that is not physical, hence earth is not what my soul is made of.


Okay. But you are a body too. Or at least you have a body, and some might think this is an important, wonderful thing. A deep part of our human identity and not just the epitomy of death and disease.

quetzalcoatl wrote:Perhaps job thought the opposite to that? In other words, the dust is the thinker


I don't think that Job thought in the dualism that you do. Job's humanity is not defined as a mind that thinks but as an earthling (adam, or of the earth).
alyoshka
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:52 am

Re: An Introduction to Job

Postby Amorphos » Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:41 pm

Why on earth would you think that life is about death and disease? That's not what life is.


I meant that they are part of life not the reason or purpose of it. I made other points there too that you missed; how do we define the earth as anything other than what it is now. If it is changed beyond recognition they it is no longer the earth. Same as if you were changed beyond recognition, you wouldn’t be you.

Water into wine. The realm of possibility expands. That's what it means: with God all things are possible because with God new things are possible.

Stop confining yourself to what is possible right now.


I am not, I am just making the philosophical point, that if you change something then it is no longer what it formerly was. ‘Water into wine’ here means that god would have to change things illogically;

Change the rules of the universe such that the earth can be grown impossibly large to cope with ever greater binary exponents of population expansion [which goes into zillions and on into denumerable amounts].

Resurrection paradox; during a war an innocent farmer is killed, his body blown apart by cannon, a part of his arm flies off into a pigpen and get eaten by a pig. A priest later eats the pig.
When the priest and the farmer are later resurrected, who gets the former cells of their bodies? They were once the farmers arm, then become a constituent part of the priest, so rightly are part of both.

Okay. But you are a body too. Or at least you have a body, and some might think this is an important, wonderful thing a deep part of our human identity.

For me it is dust, the only thing about it that is human is mind and information. My identity is formed from evolutional and environmental informations, then when I am born I take that info on and it becomes part of me. As I grow into myself that info is subsumed by who I am I.e. my soul or that of it which is incarnated in this form.

In short what I am saying is that being human is all about human ‘being’.

I don't think that Job thought in the dualism that you do. Job's humanity is not defined as a mind that thinks but as an earthling (adam, or of the earth).


Well there is part of the indo-European spiritual culture which relates to that, in celtic lore there was a belief that we are all children of ‘dis’ ~ grown out of the earth, and I think there are similar things in most ancient religions.
He may be correct, that in some animist way the earth itself contains life, and then it would be true that our spirit and souls are literally within the earth. I'd have to believe in the biblical creation to see adam as the living form of all that though. creation theories often think of us as arising from some creation mound, but now we have to take that back nearly 15 billion years to before there were planets even ~ for it to be correct that is!

Ancient peoples didn’t have the same way of seeing things as us, the element of earth wouldn’t have simply referred to matter, chemicals, mud, it would have been a spiritual thing.

interesting!
Formerly; quetzalcoatl
the truth is naked,
once it is written it is lost.
genius is the result of the entire product of man.
righteousness itself is divisive.
User avatar
Amorphos
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4339
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: Chillin` to the blue note somewhere's aroun`

Re: An Introduction to Job

Postby alyoshka » Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:12 pm

quetzalcoatl wrote:how do we define the earth as anything other than what it is now. If it is changed beyond recognition they it is no longer the earth. Same as if you were changed beyond recognition, you wouldn’t be you.


Changed beyond recognition? Even so, to be changed beyond recognition is not to be changed in one's essential being. To be beyond recognition is to no longer be recognizable as such. It is not to no longer be such.

quetzalcoatl wrote:I am not, I am just making the philosophical point, that if you change something then it is no longer what it formerly was. ‘Water into wine’ here means that god would have to change things illogically;


In the case of water to wine the water is changed in its essential being. It is not just no longer recognizable as water, it is no longer water. And you got it: God would have to change things illogically to accomplish this miracle. That's the point. All things being possible for God means that God can change the essential being of things. God can do things that were not possible before. With God, what is possible can change. The conditions of possibility can expand (with God) and contract (with sin and death).

We need to careful however. For instance, you go on to say:

quetzalcoatl wrote:Resurrection paradox; during a war an innocent farmer is killed, his body blown apart by cannon, a part of his arm flies off into a pigpen and get eaten by a pig. A priest later eats the pig.
When the priest and the farmer are later resurrected, who gets the former cells of their bodies? They were once the farmers arm, then become a constituent part of the priest, so rightly are part of both.


From death to life (or life to death) there is a change in the essential being of something. But if we consider the life before it died, and the life after it is resurrected, there is not a change in essential being there. There is not even a change in recognizability (Jesus' apostles still recognized Jesus after the resurrection. He was more beautiful, yes, but not essentially different or beyond recognition).

So in the case of resurrection there is a consistency underlying the essential change from life to death to life again. God does what is impossible, making what is dead live again, but the new life is not essentially different from the old.

As to the cells that you mention, these are not part of our essential being. A body is. The cells that constitute that body are not. So with resurrection, it is not a matter of restoring every original detail or spec of dust that once constituted us. Rather it is a matter of restoring our essential being, i.e., bringing us back to life, and making us more beautiful in the process.

quetzalcoatl wrote:For me it is dust, the only thing about it that is human is mind and information.


So what, you're a computer? You know, for all the effort to find one there has still been no clear dividing line established between the physical and the mental. Maybe one day we'll be able to separate them and download your mind but even then it would still require some kind of machine platform to function. So would you, as such, be essentially different? Would that machine platform not be part of your essential being, playing the essential role that your body/brain currently plays?

Things can be made new. Impossible things can happen. Yet essential being can remain the same.
alyoshka
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:52 am

Re: An Introduction to Job

Postby Amorphos » Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:36 pm

I think its possible to change what we ‘be’ or 'are' too. If say your DNA was changed massively.

With God, what is possible can change. The conditions of possibility can expand (with God) and contract (with sin and death).


Sure, but not if the objective is to conserve form as with an earthly mortality, or any preservation of self.

From death to life (or life to death) there is a change in the essential being of something. But if we consider the life before it died, and the life after it is resurrected, there is not a change in essential being there. There is not even a change in recognizability (Jesus' apostles still recognized Jesus after the resurrection. He was more beautiful, yes, but not essentially different or beyond recognition).


Good point! :) Problem is that this idea is transcended when we consider the original being of the priest, his resurrection would necessarily include the farmers arm, as would the farmers. If however in the resurrection we all get new bodies in the form of the one we left this world with ~ a replica, then your position holds.
When you say Jesus was ‘more beautiful’ it seems to me that he was without body, but we could say he had a different kind of physicality, one that isn’t biological or at least not the way we are. …I think biology is very temporary in its design.

I don’t know, it all sounds like we end up with a different world and body, and as like how I’d envision an otherworld. Immortality for me requires not just a different world but a different universe or reality/realm ~ a perpetual one! This universe is so transient it has no features of eternity bar perhaps our minds/spirit.

So what, you're a computer? You know, for all the effort to find one there has still been no clear dividing line established between the physical and the mental. Maybe one day we'll be able to separate them and download your mind but even then it would still require some kind of machine platform to function. So would you, as such, be essentially different? Would that machine platform not be part of your essential being, playing the essential role that your body/brain currently plays?


No I am not a computer because currently they don’t think nor have consciousness, and I’d argue that they cannot and never will ~ even artificially made neural network which are essentially like our brains.
There you’ll find the dividing line! I have also made arguments on numerous threads for the absolute divisibility between mind and physicality.
If a walked into a machine and another me came out the other end, then it wouldn’t be me. Imagine if the old you still remained ~ to see the contrast.

Things can be made new. Impossible things can happen. Yet essential being can remain the same.


Change A into B and you no longer have A.
.
Formerly; quetzalcoatl
the truth is naked,
once it is written it is lost.
genius is the result of the entire product of man.
righteousness itself is divisive.
User avatar
Amorphos
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4339
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: Chillin` to the blue note somewhere's aroun`

Re: An Introduction to Job

Postby alyoshka » Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:06 pm

quetzalcoatl wrote:I think its possible to change what we ‘be’ or 'are' too. If say your DNA was changed massively.


I guess the question is: why would we want to undertake such a change? Is our human nature so bad?

I understand wanting to accomplish the miracle from death to life (my hope is in the resurrection of the dead), but not so much the change to entirely new life forms...

quetzalcoatl wrote:Good point! Problem is that this idea is transcended when we consider the original being of the priest, his resurrection would necessarily include the farmers arm, as would the farmers. If however in the resurrection we all get new bodies in the form of the one we left this world with ~ a replica, then your position holds.
When you say Jesus was ‘more beautiful’ it seems to me that he was without body, but we could say he had a different kind of physicality, one that isn’t biological or at least not the way we are. …I think biology is very temporary in its design.


I don't think it is essential that every original spec of dust be restored in the resurrection. What matters is that we are restored. (I'm constituted now by a completely different set of atoms than I was when I was born, yet I am the same person.) I also think it would be wrong to say that Jesus no longer has a physical body. Thomas proves that Jesus is still flesh and blood after the resurrection, no? But I also see the the possibility of a new body. A machine body for instance. Ultimately, the body is more beautiful with resurrection, but this leaves a lot of room. Is the body still biological? Or is it mechanical or something else altogether?

I probably give the biological more credit than you do!

quetzalcoatl wrote:Change A into B and you no longer have A.


Sure.. But what you're talking about here is a change in essential nature. From a leaf into a dog for instance. Or from water into wine. This kind of logic is at play in resurrection, but the resurrection formula is more A into B into A', where A' is still A, but simply more beautiful.
alyoshka
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:52 am

Re: An Introduction to Job

Postby Amorphos » Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:18 pm

I guess the question is: why would we want to undertake such a change? Is our human nature so bad?


our spiritual human nature is greater than the universe [no offence to its creator], for me it's a change into what we truly are, a shrugging off of the clay which embalms us.

I understand wanting to accomplish the miracle from death to life (my hope is in the resurrection of the dead), but not so much the change to entirely new life forms...


I agree though for different reasons [I am happy to think of bodies as throwaway objects, although lives aren’t].
The philosophical point was that what things ‘are’ can be changed ~ potentially.

I don't think it is essential that every original spec of dust be restored in the resurrection. What matters is that we are restored. (I'm constituted now by a completely different set of atoms than I was when I was born, yet I am the same person.)


Another very good point! Really we are talking about the resurrection of self then, and whatever that requires to maintain its integrity. Personally I don’t think an organic body is required for that, and a machine one would be an abomination; our ‘reality’ is not the object of our being. We may end up replacing humans with soul-less artificial life-forms which mimic what humans are like yet are not human [they don’t have our reality].

I also think it would be wrong to say that Jesus no longer has a physical body. Thomas proves that Jesus is still flesh and blood after the resurrection, no? But I also see the the possibility of a new body. A machine body for instance. Ultimately, the body is more beautiful with resurrection, but this leaves a lot of room. Is the body still biological? Or is it mechanical or something else altogether?


How does Thomas prove that Jesus is still flesh and blood? Consider that everything we know is informational, if you replaced our memories with other informations we would perceive a different thing ~ or indeed a thing we expect to see. If Jesus was a soul-body, when you touch him we could be getting information about his being, which constitutes the same subjectively experienced thing as if he had an actual body. Everything you experience about yourself is mental [even if derived from sensory info]. This is why I think it is entirely possible that a thought body could be experienced in exactly the same way as our experience of a physical body.

Sure.. But what you're talking about here is a change in essential nature. From a leaf into a dog for instance. Or from water into wine. This kind of logic is at play in resurrection, but the resurrection formula is more A into B into A', where A' is still A, but simply more beautiful.


Ok, and the above is more beautiful imho, flesh is dirty, when one has a spiritual OOB experience, the return to bodily form is akin to getting out of a bath and putting on tramps clothing.
Btw ‘more beautiful’ is not the same as A, something has changed even if we have the same essentiality. What’s the change here? For me it all points to heaven rather than earth.

_
Formerly; quetzalcoatl
the truth is naked,
once it is written it is lost.
genius is the result of the entire product of man.
righteousness itself is divisive.
User avatar
Amorphos
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4339
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: Chillin` to the blue note somewhere's aroun`

Next

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users