Hello Aly,
— I don’t know about that. There is justice. There is God’s will. These aren’t the same. Not entirely.
O- But as Bildad asks: Does God pervert justice?". If God is just, then by definition it follows that His will will be just, that His actions will be just, otherwise we have no reason to hold God as the root of Justice, of the Good, of what is Right. It is for this reason that Bildead rises the objection to Job.
— There is a plan for creation that goes deeper than justice.
O- A plan that, if you could be used as a witness, actually justifies the suffering of Job. As you said, there is a reason, and if there is a reason then there is a justification. So going back to you, I think that you understand what is at stake in a theodicy, even if you are inconsistent when confronted with the case of Job.
I think that you have a good idea here but in this sense:
1- There is a plan for creation.
2- This plan is incomprehensible to man, as His ways are not our ways.
3- Yet while it cannot seem just to us mortals, to our intelligence, we nonetheless feel the terrible, the awe-inspiring power of God. God does not answer to JOb’s intelligence but appeals to that pre-rational core of Job. God’s actions, so we could say, go deeper than our sense, our idea of justice.
So is God just? Not necessarily by our standards. By His standards, who knows but Him? There is a gap, a schism between our ways and His ways. But any talk about “justice” is ususally taken from the perspective of man. What benefits man is just. What impiges against man is unjust. God does not demonstrates His justice before JOb. He brags about the rest of reality. But justice, I think, requires the Other. It can only be between two minds. The fact that the Universe is amazing, a well-oiled and designed machine that inspires awe, does not add or detract from the moral worth of God. My watch can be accurate without having to be righteous. THe designer of such watch can be morally bankrupt without affecting the design in any way. The qualifier thus is earned only through interaction. GOd could not have been just before the creation of man as it is in the eyes of man that such quality is given. So as much as we depend on God, on this count, God depends on us.
— But yes, as a theist I would have to, in some way or another, see evil as arising within this context. Within the context of God’s plan or design of creation that is. Thus in the final analysis, yes, evil could be pinned on God, either on God’s will or God’s justice.
O- Yes, we agree. But I argue that “evil” is a perspective of man, not a quality that is inherent in the acts by God. Suppose for example we consider a deserted island. A tsunami rolls by and wipes 50% of the trees out to sea; would such a botanical catastrophe be held as an evil? That said, human history cannot show God’s omnipotence or cannot show God’s benevolence towards man, the dreamer of justice. Given the magnificence of the Universe, lack of power does not seem to be the root cause of human suffering. The Book of Job dwells over the possibility that it is benevolence that is lacking and that would be a reason why God does not mind torturing poor Job on a wager. But in that day, before the storm, Job feels connected to that power. It came to meet him. The morning Sun does not explain to our intelligence why millions die of hunger under it’s light, but we feel, before it, sometimes, as with Job, that it rises according to a beautiful and intelligent design. Beyond the chaos of the dying, we conclude, must exist a purpose, a plan that is just as intelligent as the plan that rule the measured movements of the starts. Job allows himself to lose the perspective, the seat from which, to judge what is right or wrong for the sake of sustaining that overall idea that ultimately, beyond the chaos of his own life there is a design, a purpose an order that in the final analysis MUST justify his own life, must redeem his and all suffering, even if it is beyond the scope of his intelligence, his station.
— I would tend toward an anthropological origin of evil however. God willed humankind. Humankind brought evil into the world. Thus I don’t see God as responsible for evil. No more than the parent is culpable for the sins of the child or the child for the sins of the parent (as your Ezekial passage points out).
O- Old apology. It leaves out suffering caused by natural disasters, or even natural phenomena, such as droughts, viruses etc.
— There is a period of infancy, yes, where the parent must take responsibility, but rearing a child is always going to be a risk. A balance between over-parenting and under-parenting. Letting the child learn on its own, the hard way, is sometimes the best way.
O- Nevertheless, you never as a parent put your child’s life at risk. My daughter lives in an enviroment, like most children, where she can, by her own actions and choices, either burn, electrocute or poison herself. Yet, as a good parent I take away her possibility to make those choices. I have barriers that curtail the effectivity of her choices. This does not destroy the existence in her of freedom but it limits the damage that can come from her freedom.
— Hold up. You’re assuming God tests Job to “impress” the satan. Yes and no. God has faith in Job’s commitment, absolutely.
O- God is omnisense- he needs no faith for what he knows and sees.
— The satan, however, does not.
O- It would be Satan, who could be said, holds by his faith in the corruptibility of man that Job is unrighteous.
— The satan in its wanderings on earth has developed a low opinion of humankind, one far from God’s own (that humankind is made in God’s image and deserves a crown).
O- Not so fast. God, in the Bible, destroyed the world through a flood…that does not seem an affirmation that man could right himself. And He believed this even after. Jesus also assumes this idea, this belief, that overall, man is unrighteous, that man is undeserving, that by his own will he cannot save himself even if he could…the low opinion about mankind extends to the entire Heavenly Host.
— So yes, it is to “impress” the satan. But it is not out of boastfulness that God does it.
O- Say it as you will, the wife still would find it morally repulsive that you would smack her repeadedly just so that you, the husband, to “educate”, perhaps, a friend, or enemy, that you are faithful and loyal even when you have no reason to be.
— I believe the book is designed to be read in two ways. The obvious way is that Job will struggle with his fear of God, or his commitment/faith or whatever you want to call it. As the satan says, “Job will curse You to Your face.”
O- I think the Satanic accusation is not that Job is not fearful or loyal, but that JOb is what he is because he has been given ample reason by God to be such and such. More broadly, the case is that human obedience to God is rendered in exchange for something. The Bible is a story where God and man enter into covenants, contracts and exchanges. Man gets this or that favor and God gets mankind’s loyalty. That is nothing to brag about, Satan says. But what if man was loyal even when he has no reason to be loyal? That would be impressive but it is also improbable, if not impossible.
— But there is another possibility! Job never loses faith in God at all but rather Job loses his fear of humankind, and it is this that God restores.
O- When? When he says to Eliphaz and his two friends that they have NOT spoken what is right and that Job had to bail them out? God restored his integrity before men, not his faith in these men who were obviously wrong in the whole matter.
— The first corresponds to Job’s fear of God being on the line, the second with Job’s fear of humankind. i.e., believing that he
has been let go is tantamount to believing in the worthlessness of humankind, or that humankind is not to be feared. As God’s speeches show, this couldn’t be farther from the truth.
O- Job does not speak for the integrity of humanity but for his integrity. He knows that there are wisked humans, but he expected to be weighted different from them when put on the scales. The rewards were not due to humanity qua human, but according to their deeds and choices.
— Be careful. The test was that “Job would curse God to God’s face.” Thus the test isn’t over, and Job hasn’t proven a thing, until God confronts Job and Job shows he won’t curse God.
O- …I agree.
— Job is asking “What is humankind?” and he has concluded “Not much”.
O- Where does he says this? Does he say that of his own integrity, his own faithfulness and loyalty to God? Because if so then JOb would not have have the gall to request an audience with God.
— Job once believed he was made and called to God’s image, that he was crowned in glory and honour.
O- But not by his nature, but by his choices, his acts and deeds. He earned that crown.
— Now he believes he is worthless and destined to the ash heap.
O- But unjustly.
— Job thinks he has been let go, that God has revoked his status/station as tselem elohim.
O- No. That God has acted unjustly, treating a friend like an enemy, for no reason, no change in the righteousness of God’s friend.
— To tie into the previous response, this is another way of phrasing it. Job thinks/laments that his righteous example has failed to save the rest.
O- It was not an example. He laments that his righteousness have served him for nothing before God.
— That humankind, righteous Job included, is destined to the ash heap. This is not true of course, but it is what Job believes.
O- But even if Job may agree that some humans deserve the ash heap, he disagrees that it should be the righteous like himself. He doesn’t disagree with the program, but is claiming that the program has not been followed as advertised in his own case. And he is right. It was a temporary exception.
— I am in accord with the Christian belief. Job loses faith in it for awhile, given his treatment, but God restores Job’s faith in it in the end.
O- His faith in GOd? Yes. His faith in the intelligibility of God? Not so much.