[lbo-talk] Re: nailing the holy ghost

[Jeffrey Fisher]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:33:06 -0600, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
> >
> > if it's true that he's got no tact,
> > it's only because, well, i mean, he's f****ing god, after all. why the
> > f*** does he *need* tact?
> >
> 
> *****After him [Descartes], Malebranche and Leibniz will apply that same
> reason -- which knows only by judging according to its own measure -- to
> the justification of God. What had been called _natural theology_ will
> henceforth be called _theodicy_, and, setting out to comprehend the
> divine ways in order to render them acceptable, will religiously prepare
> the way for atheism. All that He has done is well done because it is He
> who hath done it, said Christian reason. It is He who has done all,
> since it is well done and since I know why, and besides, He is bound to
> do the best, says Leibnizian optimism -- a materialized and corrupted
> scholasticism which woudl not only have seemed impious but absurd to a
> Thomas Aquinas.**** Jacques Maritain, _Distinguish to Unite or The
> Degrees of Knowledge_, tr. Gerald R. Phelan (London: Geoffrey Bles,
> 1959), p. 226.
> 

that's not the way i read job, although perhaps i read job
incorrectly. it's not a question of theodicy, because god's ways
neither can nor need be justified. job never justifies god's actions
except insofar as it tells us that job (the character) has no standing
to file a suit against god.

here it's important to understand job as responding to the wisdom
tradition of the psalms and proverbs, according to which you are
supposed to be good so that god takes care of you. job (the book)
throws that in the bin. god does what god does because god wants to,
not because it's "best" and certainly not because he owes you anything
for being "good" or offering the proper sacrifices. indeed, it seems
pretty clear in job that we humans are really not god's first concern.

this view of god would also be offensive to thomas aquinas, but not in
the same way that leibniz would. of course, thomas's reading of job
was different from mine. i just don't see any indication in job that
god is "good" in the traditional sense, so the traditional "problem of
evil" -- which the book of job is traditionally understood to address
-- is out the window, too. at least as far as i can see.

j
who just hit the limit