The Idiot's Tale

[Brown]

See The Idiot's Tale by James Randi.

Ian Rowland put straight questions--questions that are difficult but fair--to the Archbishop of York, and got answers that are largely gobbledygook. I am not saying that to be insulting to the Archbishop. I am saying it because I have really tried to understand his points, but some of them simply make no logical sense.

The Archbishop said, "I have nothing actually to say that makes sense of this horror," and then went on to illustrate the point by saying things that indeed made no sense.

Now, there are some things that do make a little sense, but they aren't very illuminating. In the "undecipherable" portion of the interview, my expectation is that the Archbishop is referring to the exchange in Luke 13, in which Jesus is quoted as saying:

Luke 13:4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?

Luke 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

The story of the falling tower is not one that is very well known (which may be why the one making the transcript had never heard of the Tower at Siloam, and therefore deemed the remark undecipherable). One of the messages of the tower story seems to be (and the Archbishop sorta emphasizes it) that bad stuff happens to good people.

Got that? Bad stuff happens to good people.

Now, this is not very illuminating for a number of reasons. First, general experience suggests that bad stuff happens to good people, so confirmation from the Archbishop pretty much agrees with what we already know from our own observations. It doesn't tell us very much about resolving the problems that Ian poses. Second, the message of Luke is ambiguous. Jesus is quoted as saying that the poeple killed by the tower collapse were not necessarily really bad people, but he also urges his listeners to repent lest perish in similar fashion, indicating that there is SOME sort of linkage between goodness and death by calamity.

And of course, the notion that bad stuff happens to good people makes the ancient "problem of evil" question more difficult for religious folks to answer.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I think the verses say that God drops towers on people in order to scare the rest of us into shaping up.

 

[Psi Baba]

The Luke passages tell us that faith is no better than the Lottery. If you don't play, you certainly will lose, but even if you do play, you still might lose. Tough luck.

Wow, after typing this the irony of handing out lottery tickets as Christmas gifts just hit me like lightning from a clear sky.

 

[Brown]

What I suspect Jesus was saying (or rather, what the author of Luke attributed to Jesus, since the book of Luke is the only place this story was told) was:

Really bad sinners die in catastrophes.
But not all people who die in catastrophes are really bad sinners.

Or it might even be put this way:
The Almighty DOES punish SOME really bad sinners with catastrophes, but not all catastrophes are punishments. (Or if a non-sinner dies in a catastrophe that WAS intended as a punishment, then that is acceptable "collateral damage.")

Virtually any reasonable interpretation of the tower story, though, raises serious questions about the nature of the Almighty, particularly (but not limited to) whether the Almighty is just, whether the Almighty is capricious, whether the Almighty cares about people, or whether the Almighty is REALLY Almighty.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

What I suspect Jesus was saying (or rather, what the author of Luke attributed to Jesus, since the book of Luke is the only place this story was told) was:

Really bad sinners die in catastrophes.
But not all people who die in catastrophes are really bad sinners.

Or it might even be put this way:
The Almighty DOES punish SOME really bad sinners with catastrophes, but not all catastrophes are punishments. (Or if a non-sinner dies in a catastrophe that WAS intended as a punishment, then that is acceptable "collateral damage.")

Virtually any reasonable interpretation of the tower story, though, raises serious questions about the nature of the Almighty, particularly (but not limited to) whether the Almighty is just, whether the Almighty is capricious, whether the Almighty cares about people, or whether the Almighty is REALLY Almighty.

That's just because our small human minds are too small to understand the AWESOME MIND OF GOD!

If only we would just believe!

GOD is PERFECT. He tells us so!

 

[AvalonXQ]

Matthew 5: The sun and rain are sent on the righteous and the wicked.
John 9: Whose sin caused a man to be born blind? No one.
And then, of course, there's the book of Job.
Physical suffering doesn't come because we deserve it; physical suffering is just part of the process of living a physical life.

 

[JWideman]

See, God is an alcoholic. Sure, he loves his children, but when he gets drunk he gets angry and lashes out at everyone around him. In the bible, he got drunk a LOT. He's in recovery now, but has relapses because he doesn't have a higher power.

 

[AvalonXQ]

It's hard when you can't even complete Step 2 of the AA.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

See The Idiot's Tale by James Randi.

Ian Rowland put straight questions--questions that are difficult but fair--to the Archbishop of York, and got answers that are largely gobbledygook.
.

No. Ian Rowland sent the transcript to Randi.
BBC presenter John Humphreys put the questions. Which is his day job.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Humphrys

John Humphrys has written several books, including Lost for Words, in which he criticizes what he sees as the widespread misuse of the English language, plus 'Devil's Advocate', 'Beyond Words', 'The Great Food Gamble' and 'In God We Doubt: Confessions Of A Failed Atheist'.
Humphrys is an agnostic, but has a curiosity to test his agnosticism and challenge established religions to see if they can restore his childhood belief in God. In 2006, he presented a BBC Radio 4 programme, titled "Humphrys in Search of God" where he spoke to leading British authorities on Christianity, Judaism and Islam to try and restore his faith.[8]

 

[Brown]

No. Ian Rowland sent the transcript to Randi.
BBC presenter John Humphreys put the questions. Which is his day job.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Humphrys

I stand corrected.

By the way, the notion that people don't deserve the catastrophes that befall them IS supported by the Bible. The Bible ALSO more than adequately supports the contrary position, however. The Great Flood, of course, is perhaps the most well-known cataclysmic punishment for human wickedness. As Isaac Asimov pointed out, the Old Testament histories of Chronicles appear to be be deliberately distorted to correlate righteousness with good fortune and wickedness with ill fortune.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I stand corrected.

By the way, the notion that people don't deserve the catastrophes that befall them IS supported by the Bible. The Bible ALSO more than adequately supports the contrary position, however. The Great Flood, of course, is perhaps the most well-known cataclysmic punishment for human wickedness.

Emphasis added. Calling the two positions contrary is logically inaccurate. The Bible supports these two ideas:
1) God uses cataclysms as punishment.
2) Cataclysms occur that are not punishment.
If a cataclysm occurs, that by itself is insufficient to know whether it was deserved.
Similarly, the government may kill some people when they commit capital crimes; that does not imply that everyone that dies has committed a capital crime.

 

[Nonpareil]

It's hard when you can't even complete Step 2 of the AA.

 

[Arkyrion]

In other words, "S*** happens, praise Jebas."

 

[arthwollipot]

Emphasis added. Calling the two positions contrary is logically inaccurate. The Bible supports these two ideas:
1) God uses cataclysms as punishment.
2) Cataclysms occur that are not punishment.
If a cataclysm occurs, that by itself is insufficient to know whether it was deserved.
Similarly, the government may kill some people when they commit capital crimes; that does not imply that everyone that dies has committed a capital crime.

Does God not cause all cataclysms? Or do some things happen that are out of God's control?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Does God not cause all cataclysms?

God does not cause all cataclysms in order to punish the wicked.

 

[Darat]

God does not cause all cataclysms in order to punish the wicked.

But he does "cause all cataclysms"?

 

[AvalonXQ]

He allows all cataclysms to happen.
As we know from the book of Job, that doesn't necessarily mean God is the direct cause. Nor is there necessarily anything supernatural about a cataclysm happening.

 

[Darat]

He allows all cataclysms to happen.
As we know from the book of Job, that doesn't necessarily mean God is the direct cause. Nor is there necessarily anything supernatural about a cataclysm happening.

If you are calling on Job as your evidence that tells us that all such actions are condoned by god, whether they harm the innocent or not.

 

[AvalonXQ]

If you are calling on Job as your evidence that tells us that all such actions are condoned by god, whether they harm the innocent or not.

Again, God permits them all to happen, even though He's not the one doing it.

 

[CatInTheBag]

How can something just happen? Where's the guiding force?

 

[AvalonXQ]

How can something just happen? Where's the guiding force?

Again book of Job.
So, Satan makes it happen, or maybe it just happens. Your choice.

 

[Darat]

Again, God permits them all to happen, even though He's not the one doing it.

Nope, in Job he goes beyond simply permitting the bad things into explicitly authorising those bad things.

 

[SimonD]

Nope, in Job he goes beyond simply permitting the bad things into explicitly authorising those bad things.

Doesn't the devil basically goad god into performing all types of horribleness onto poor old Job and his family?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Nope, in Job he goes beyond simply permitting the bad things into explicitly authorising those bad things.

I disagree. Satan asks God for permission; God gives permission. God does not give Satan authorization; He does not tell Satan to do these things on His behalf or otherwise obligate Satan to do them.

 

[CatInTheBag]

Huh? Which dictionary are you reading?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Huh? Which dictionary are you reading?

American Heritage. The primary definition is to give authority or power.
The distinction between permission and authorization is that permission means you're acting on your own but the other person won't stop you. Authorization means you're acting on their behalf.
My point was that Satan was acting for Satan, not for God. If you disagree with the semantics the point still stands.

 

[Darat]

I disagree. Satan asks God for permission; God gives permission. God does not give Satan authorization; He does not tell Satan to do these things on His behalf or otherwise obligate Satan to do them.

Oh please:

1:9 Then Satan answered the Lord, “Is it for nothing that Job fears God? 1:10 Have you not made a hedge around him and his household and all that he has on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his livestock have increased in the land. 1:11 But extend your hand and strike everything he has, and he will no doubt curse you to your face!”

1:12 So the Lord said to Satan, “All right then, everything he has is in your power. Only do not extend your hand against the man himself!”


42:11 So they came to him, all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and they dined with him in his house. They comforted him and consoled him for all the trouble the Lord had brought on him, and each one gave him a piece of silver23 and a gold ring.

Not only does God give Satan authorisation he even places limits on that, plus of course as the verse clearly states Satan is simply acting as God's hand - if he wasn't then the whole tale makes no sense at all as it would not be God that was cursing Job.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Not only does God give Satan authorisation he even places limits on that, plus of course as the verse clearly states Satan is simply acting as God's hand - if he wasn't then the whole tale makes no sense at all as it would not be God that was cursing Job.

No. God did not curse Job; Satan did.
And the whole tale makes perfect sense; humans blame God when Satan is at fault. Hence the entire chapters where Job's friends mistakenly blame Job when Job has actually done nothing wrong, because they (and Job) assume that God has done these things when in fact He has not.

 

[Darat]

No. God did not curse Job; Satan did.
And the whole tale makes perfect sense; humans blame God when Satan is at fault. Hence the entire chapters where Job's friends mistakenly blame Job when Job has actually done nothing wrong, because they (and Job) assume that God has done these things when in fact He has not.

The book of Job disagrees with your interpretation: "....They comforted him and consoled him for all the trouble the Lord had brought on him," not for the trouble Satan or anyone else had brought on him

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I disagree. Satan asks God for permission; God gives permission. God does not give Satan authorization; He does not tell Satan to do these things on His behalf or otherwise obligate Satan to do them.

And, of course, the Book of Job is just a presage of the trick that God and His Buddy Satan have played on you with the whole Jesus Christ the Son of God Trick. You have fallen for this and been perverted from belief in the True God of the Old Testament.

For accepting the False Saviour you will burn in Hell for All Eternity.

Or at least you get a brain.

 

[Terry]

And the whole tale makes perfect sense;.

Yup, it shows that God is a complete *******.

 

[AvalonXQ]

The book of Job disagrees with your interpretation:

No, it doesn't. People blame God, but part of what makes this book interesting is that it shows that what people blame on God is often not God's doing.
The fact that Job's relatives blamed God says something about people, not something about God.

 

[Darat]

No, it doesn't. People blame God, but part of what makes this book interesting is that it shows that what people blame on God is often not God's doing.
The fact that Job's relatives blamed God says something about people, not something about God.

It starts with:

".... But extend your[God] hand and strike everything he has ...."

and ends with

"...consoled him for all the trouble the Lord had brought on him ..."

 

[AvalonXQ]

It starts with:

the words of Satan

and ends with

the beliefs of his relatives.

And what are the words of God on this matter?

12 And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand on his person.”

(emphasis added, case rested)

 

[arthwollipot]

Again, God permits them all to happen, even though He's not the one doing it.

Why? And who?

 

[Darat]

the words of Satan



the beliefs of his relatives.

And what are the words of God on this matter?


(emphasis added, case rested)

So as I said god authorises the angel's actions against Job. (Plus of course what you are saying is that we can't believe what we read in the Bible...)

 

[AvalonXQ]

(Plus of course what you are saying is that we can't believe what we read in the Bible...)

If by "believe what we read in the Bible" you mean "take as a matter of undisputed fact each phrase in the Bible without paying attention to context", then I would agree that we can't.
People try to take statements from quotations from humans and even Satan and claim that if we don't believe those statements to be true, we're not believing the Bible to be true. The three most important things to keep in mind when understanding any text, especially the Bible: context, context, and context.
Heck, if I were allowed to quote individual passages out of context from Supreme Court opinions the way you people quote Bible passages, I could prove anything I want legally, too. Quote from the dissenting opinion, quote from the Court explaining the arguments being made by the losing party, and then call it a day.
Of course, honest hermaneutics don't work this way, but since when do opponents of the Bible care to look at it honestly?

 

[Darat]

If by "believe what we read in the Bible" you mean "take as a matter of undisputed fact each phrase in the Bible without paying attention to context", then I would agree that we can't.

...anip...

Nope I meant what I said, that is that you hold that we can't believe what we read in the Bible, which is fine - no skin of my nose and all that.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Nope I meant what I said, that is that you hold that we can't believe what we read in the Bible,

... which certainly doesn't follow from anything I've said. You're welcome to believe that based on what you've said if you'd like, though.

 

[Darat]

... which certainly doesn't follow from anything I've said.

...snip...

Apart from it does follow from when you say, for example, that we can't believe the bits about what Satan said or indeed about what god said.