[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

ZNP has continually quoted scriptures to support his views, but OBW and awareness do not. Sounds to me like OBW's "kind of forum" is based on sarcasm and natural reasoning. awareness's kind of forum is based on unbelief, portraying God as a buffoon.

Since OBW cannot respond to ZNP's understanding of the scriptures, he resorts to the ultimate "cheap shot" -- calling ZNP "Lee-esque" by his quoting of scripture.

It's quite interesting how the God-basher and the Lee-hater have corroborated together to oppose the Bible-quoter.

The problem is that simply quoting the Bible does not make something true. And finding fault in how the Bible is quoted does not require a quote of the Bible in all cases. My challenge has been to establish how the verses that ZNP has used make the assertions he has made with them. Those verses say much. And while I have generalized to say that God is responding to Job, it is as stand-in for Job and his friends. God even asserts that Job was partly right relative to the others. But on the whole his response is to set the record straight. It is not about the One New Man, about Christ, or the New Jerusalem. You may even find some imagery in one or two places that sort of suggest a meaningful link. But not in a way that overrides the direct meaning of the entire dialog.

So ZNP quotes from Job:

11:8 It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know?

Then he mocks me by saying:

This is what OBW said – “God answered those questions by saying that Job asked the questions from a position of ignorance.”
And OBW – “But God asserts that he (Job) does not have the standing to understand.”

And I would assert that this verse says exactly what I said. God has asked Job and/or his friends "what can you do?" and "what can you know?"

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the Pharisees quoted scripture all day long. I'm not calling ZNP a Pharisee. I'm noting that peppering your discussion with scripture does not make the scripture you quote authoritative on the topic being discussed. And I do not make the reference to Lee in a hollow way. He did this kind of thing with diarrhea. He would quote all kinds of scripture that talked about many things irrelevant to the topic of conversation, then just say whatever and we assumed that it was linked to the scripture.

Let's see. It goes something like this. "Here we see the word 'know.' This is a reference to the knowledge of good and evil. Man thinks that he knows so much about good and evil because of this knowledge that was imparted to him back in the garden. This means that Job and his friends are simply mired in the wrong tree."

Now that was the kind of thing that Lee would do. Let's try on ZNP's. "Here in Job 11:8 we see God challenging Job and his friends concerning their knowledge. This means that God is challenging them to come to know these things."

What verse do I need to defeat this kind of nonsense? (Don't get overly concerned that ZNP did not actually say what I just "put in his mouth." I needed a shorter version than the ones he peppers his challenges with. Find where he has actually linked any of the verses to the One New Man or any evidence that we are to have an "arm of strength" like God's.

Yes, Eliphaz sort of got it right. We often read statements like "therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty" as being true. And in a sense, they are. But God responds even to this. What happens to Job is not about God's discipline. It is that life is not what we demand. Even in the presence of a good and all-powerful God. To argue that Job should accept chastening is to presume that evil that befalls us is always about chastening. In other words, if bad things happen, then in a Yen and Yang world, you will get chastened. And because it is a Yen and Yang world, then if you are getting lemons, you must deserve them.

Where in the entire book of Job is it suggest (other than out of the mouth of one or more of Job's friends) that Job deserved the suffering he endured? Even God does not say that. But he does effectively say that "you can't always get what you want."

And to come back to agree on something, when we turn to a different part of scripture to verses that are given in a completely different context, God does use the hardships we face to perfect us, therefore it is also correct to say that "you get what you need." But even in that old song, there is no presumption that all of the hardships are simply OK, but that you ultimately do get what you need. (And it may be chastisement.)

No, I tend not to quote from fortune cookies to cause them to support what I am saying. But do you really find that Job is talking about the One New Man? That it is about that one new man coming to have the power and authority of God? In the verse in Job? What verses do I need to quote to show you it is not so? Quote the entire book and show, word-by-word, sentence-by-sentence, paragraph-by-paragraph and section-by-section that it isn't there? Just because ZNP quotes verses does not make their interpretation correct. Do I need to quote the same verses, or others, to refute abject poverty of argument?

This is not about Lee-hating. You are dismissing me out of hand because you have classified me as a Lee-hater. And it is not about ganging up on a Bible-quoter. These kinds of distractions from the error in the logic displayed by those who would quote so many verses do you no service. Just because verses are quoted does not make the argument strong. And just because verses are not included does not make the argument weak. Consider what is being said. I am almost constantly amazed at the kind of strange lenses that are used to take the clear meaning of so many verses and turn them into subservient to pet constructs. And further, how many of our pet constructs continue to be those created by Lee, even for those of us who no longer consider him a valid source of teaching?

And what does discussing Job as a precursor or metaphor (or whatever) for the One New Man do to answer zeek's questions concerning the valid basis for accepting the God he thinks he sees in the Bible in the face of the evil that he clearly sees in the world? How does arguing the One New Man anwer the question?

It is entirely acceptable to God that we question him. That we go through periods of doubt. And to answer someone else's push-back to zeek, the logical argument doesn't always work. At least not a first. It often really is a matter of emotion. And it requires that someone or someones come along side and walk with them through it. There is probably some present conflict or pain. And arguing that everything turns out alright in the end does not fix the emotions. Finding that God actually comes along side through people often does. And I will be the first to acknowledge that I am much more comfortable with the logical debate. Even when I am over my head in it.