The Blatchford Controversies, 4 - The Eternal Heroism Of The Slums

The knock on Christianity is its sordid history of sin and crime.  But there is nothing in that sin and crime unique to Christianity.  All human institutions have histories riddled with crime, for crime is what happens when humans cling to their strongly held views and try for them to win the day.  The worst offender in theis arena is the State itself, the inventor of all the tools of torture.

The difference is that Christianity acknowledges its sin.  Its tale of its own origin, in fact, originates in human sin.  That sin is the starting point on which the edifice of redemption is built.  Unlike many other institutions, Christianity at least offers a remedy for sin.

The rationalists, on the other hand, offer only one solution to the state of humanity: the denial of any personal responsibility for any action at all.  Taken in full, this solution will ruin all of human experience.  For while it absolves the wrongdoer from any responsibility for wrongs done, it also excludes the good man from any responsibility for virtuous acts.  Moreover, the adoption of the materialist philosophy contradicts itself almost instantly:

[A]lthough people ought not to be blamed for their actions... they ought to be trained to do better.  They ought, he said, to be given better conditions of heredity and environment, and then they would be good, and the problem would be solved.  The primary answer is obvious.  How can one say that a man ought not to be held responsible, but ought to be well trained?  For if he "ought" to be well trained, there must be somebody who "ought" to train him.  And that man must be held responsible for training him.  The proposition has killed itself in three sentences.

Even if it fell to some to set up conditions to make all others virtuous there is not a soul who can tell you what the correct, perfect conditions would be.  And the reason is simple enough: the proper Utopia could only be built by perfect men.  Where are they?

But the attitude is even more sinister than this.  If the rationalist thinks it is up to the upper class to build a society to repair the sin arising out of the lower class, what does this imply?  Obviously, that the lower class is morally deficient, incapable of exercising virtue.  What a wicked thought.  We know that virtue is available to all men-- at times, the knowledge that he is still capable is all that will keep a man going under difficult circumstances.  And now the rationalist wants to take away even that hopeful thought, by telling him he bears no responsibility.  "So pants this strange comforter, from cell to cell."

Such a philosophy will never last.  In time, men will cast it aside in favor of the philosophy that treats them their freedom as men.  Christianity correctly offers that philosophy.

The Blatchford Controversies, III - Miracles And Modern Civilization

The silliest argument against Christianity is ridicule its claimed miracles, or to suggest that a belief in miracles is contradicted by modern science.  Miracles are by definition rare events, and it is not obvious at all that the laws of nature could not produce them in rare circumstances.  The real miracle, one not noticed by the rationalists, is the continued existence of things.  Their philosophy cannot begin to contemplate such an occurence as this.

Moreover, the use of a concept like a "law of nature" is no kind of explanation at all, but merely an analogous reference to a more familiar item of experience: a law of Parliament.  If we are free to choose from among familiar experience in our explanation of the world, the Christian prefers a much richer item to use as an analogy: an act of will.  The world emerges from the Father's will in the same way an earthly father begets his offspring.  And this is a much richer source for an analogy, as the potential works of this will are much more varied and marvellous than anything a mere law could ever produce.

The current fashion of materialism is just that: mere fashion.  Fie on that.  It is no argument to say a rational modern judge could not be convinced of Christianity.

But it does not seem to occur to [Blatchford] that we Christians may not have such an extravagant reverence for English judges as is felt by Mr. Blatchford himself. 

The experiences of the Founder of Christianity have perhaps left us in a vague doubt of the infallibility of courts of law.

[Burn.]

And it would be silly for the different religions to deny one another's miracles.  Signs and wonders are a universal feature of human experience.  The arguments among religions concern doctrine, of course.  The vital question is whether a religion has a "true philosophy of the Universe."

--------------------------

At first I read this as just a boring repetition of the fallacy of inductive reasoning, but it's way deeper than that.  It's especially interesting that the vaunted "laws of nature" that the rationalist subscribed to were about to be overturned wholesale by quantum physics.

The Blatchford Controversies, II - Why I Believe In Christianity

Two facts of note: First, Christianity rose and spread within a very modern world, in that the Romans had a highly developed rational philosophy.  But it spread anyway.  Second, the Christian world advanced by leaps and bounds beyond the non-Christian world.

Secularists ridicule what they see as central contradictions at the core of Christian belief, but we should examine the nature of the contradiction.  The easiest way to avoid contradiction in belief is to proclaim agnosticism, but it is entirely unworkable.  As a practical matter, simply to get through the day, we must commit ourselves to one philosophy or to another.  If nothing else, we must decide to hold or not to hold others responsible for their actions.  The secularist tries to deny free will, but knows that he must behave in everyday life as if it were real.  Why can we not ridicule that contradiction, lived every day?  Whereas a Christian who professes free will recognizes the difficulty in the position, sees no other way, embraces the contradiction, calls it mystery-- and puts it at the center of his life.  Can we not respect the honesty?  Especially considering that that philosophy has all the success.

Alternatives: We can respect the beautiful natural world as our creator, but at some point we will ask, then why not go to war as the birds do?  Or we can recognize that problem, throw up our hands, and call the universe absurd.  Then why continue to try to make our way through the world, assert ourselves against that universe? 

Or, we can appreciate the birds as birds while we recognize man as man, with all the baggage and difficulty that comes with that declaration.  And as we do so, we can proclaim that the God who made the birds birds Himself became man.  And we will know we have solved the dilemma, even as the new path is full of contradiction.

Finally, the whole secularist program actually reaffirms Christian theology.  While they proclaim the march of progress, progress can only be recognized as a movement toward a higher state.  But actually recognizing a higher state as being higher requires an overall orientation that a barren universe does not provide.  The Christian story of the Fall leading to the Resurrection, on the other hand, is the template of against which all progress is judged.  The concept of a good human nature that can either be fallen short of or successfully pursued requires, at some point, the reality of that good state.

-----------------------------

Five pages.  Holy crap.

The Blatchford Controversies, I - Christianity And Rationalism

Four arguments are typically given, and specifically offered by Robert Blatchford, for the rejection of Christianity as false and absurd.  But the critical facts cited wihin each argument can just as easily buttress a sincere belief in Christianity.

1. The legend of a divine savior is common among many ancient and contemporary cultures, and is not unique to Christianity.  Answer: This does not suggest the impossibility of a divine savior, but rather that human existence is aimed toward its own redemption by a divine savior.  Just as a long and varied pedigree of tales of love and tales of revenge do not suggest the absurdity of such a thing as love and revenge, but instead highlight the centrality of such emotions and actions to genuine human existence.

2. Ascetic devotion to Christianity abandons its practitioners to a barren existence empty of other human pleasures.  Answer: It certainly must be a powerfully attractive force that would draw the absolute attention of its devotees in such a way as this.  In a crasser, but parallel example, we recognize that the destruction caused by alcoholism is due to the powerful hold the drink has on the drinker.  We don't conclude from the addiction that the alcoholic is hallucinating his own intake of drink, but that the feeling of drunkenness is entirely, frightfully real.

3. Commitment to religious tenets has produced terrible war, abject suffering, and the worst forms of cruelty.  Answer: Humans being what they are, our worst offenses always emerge out of our attempts to protect what we love best-- nearly every murder and robbery in history is undertaken in pursuit of a "noble" goal, and human religion cannot be immune from the flaws of humanity.  In a more recent analogy, the terrors of the French Revolution grew from devotion to Liberty, Egality, and Fraternity.  Terrible actions don't undermine the truth of their central goodness.  And what is more, the injection of such a greater Truth into human society would well lead to even harsher responses from us weak humans who are ill-equipped to deal with such greatness.

4. Hebrew and Christian religions trace back to particular, local, tribal groups and simplistic primitive events.  Answer: How else could human beings experience the divine, and then communicate that experience, except through the same means and patterns as their experience of their familiar local world?  A human who expresses a full-formed, logical conception of the infinite goodness of God full stop is surely making it up, for humans are not wired to gain knowledge in this way.

These arguments that were offered against Christianity, then, were not arguments at all, but mere observations.  And mere observations can always be used to lead to opposing conclusions.  The Secularists have entirely avoided, however, the most powerful arguments in favor of Christianity-- they will follow.  Furthermore, those who won't be swayed by the four arguments above only remain unmoved due to their steadfast devotion to the central tenets of their own secularist orthodoxy.  Ironically impressive.

----------------------------

Time to get back on the Chesterton horse.  I'm re-reading the chapters in Heretics that I read months ago, but it's worthwhile to also get a handle on the background arguments that led to him write the book in the first place.  The Blatchford Controversies are the third selection in the Collected Works Volume 1.

The biggest difference between the use of the cited facts by Chesterton and their use by the secularists is Chesterton's willingness to observe human behavior as its own whole, ontologically basic thing.  In all four cases, the secularists argue away human responses as the mere agglomerated, non-meaningful end results of unthinking, unfeeling physical and material processes-- processes whose bizarre end results obviously can tell us nothing about some weird spiritual realm that doesn't really exist in the first place.  It is central to the argument of determinism that human existence has no genuine purpose, while Chesterton takes the purposefulness of human existence (and the personal internal experience of that purposefulness) as absolutely central and reads the reality of spiritualness back from that.  And then experiences great joy out of his conclusions.

Heretics, V - Mr. H.G. Wells And The Giants

It is our duty to those we call hypocrites to closely examine their beliefs, and thereby to perhaps discover the utter sincerity with which they hold them.  This applies most pertinently to the deeply religious of the past, who (we say) professed "crawling humility" and yet (somehow, we sneer) gained control over the whole world.  There is nothing hypocritical about this-- in fact, the former certainly opens the door to the latter.  By properly claiming that they deserved nothing, the Christians opened the way to achieving everything; by not always examining whether they had been slighted, those Christians opened themselves to immeasurable (because unmeasured!) gains.

A modern example of the same phenomenon of genuine humility is the truly great scientist.  He becomes great through his attention and devotion to a single small idea-- whose consequence is to completely overturn our understanding of the world.  It is the quiet devotion that achieves this, though, not the bombastic bragging over the enormous consequences.  "There were possible answers to Huxley; there was no answer possible to Darwin."  One specific example of this kind of humility is H.G. Wells.  His literary output is utterly fantastic-- but he comes to it from careful and sincere examination of the state of humanity around him.  Proof that he is no huckster: the softening of his futuristic vision from that of Morlock and Eloi to that of competent, knowledgeable citizens.

In another instance, he has abandoned his view that reproduction will become a matter of managed breeding of superior men.  He has come to view such a program as technically infeasible.  It is, instead, morally infeasible more than that-- good men will never allow themselves to be treated in this way.  The problem that he does not perceive, ultimately, is that he views health as a problem to be scientifically or medically managed-- hence, health care.  This is the opposite of the truth.  True health is that state in which we can afford to be bold, daring, striving, ambitious, and reckless.  The healthy man eats to fill his appetite and takes pleasure in doing so; exercises primarily to enjoy exertion and the outdoors; marries for love!  The other results-- stronger, well-operating bodies and offspring-- take care of themselves.

Wells's devotion to a scientific approach leaves him with other blind spots as well.  His view of man starts with the material, when any simple examination shows you must start with the spiritual.  His vision of Utopia is built first on its citizens' shunning the concept of original sin-- but a simple examination shows this to be the most self-evident concept we have!  "He would have found... that a permanent possibility of selfishness arises from the mere fact of having a self[.]"  Every venture into Utopia suffers from the same defect, of course-- that of assuming the big problems have gone away, and organizing society to deal with the small.  "They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be devlibered by motor-car or balloon."  But this Utopia is impossible because man's devotion to his ideals-- to the point of fighting for them-- is his defining characterisitic.

The scientific devotion leads to the shunning of metaphysics, and so to ridiculing a belief in or fixation on ideals and universals.  But such an attitude implicitly rejects the possibility of knowledge in the first place.  You cannot say we have left our silly theories behind and have moved to more solid and reasonable foundation of knowledge unless there is a direct relationship between the old and the new; unless there is an ideal state of knowledge that both participate in, the new in greater measure than the old; unless there be a commonality through which we make the valid comparison.  Noticing a difference necessarily comes after noticing a similarity-- otherwise, why make the comparison at all?  "When we say the hare moves faster, we say that the toroise moves.  And when we say of a thing that it moves, we say, without need of other words, that there are things that do not move.  And even in the act of saying that things change, we say that there is something unchangeable."  Put another way: yes, surely North and South are relative concepts, but the very idea of direction requires that there be a fixed North Pole.  We say that one object is dimmer or brighter than another-- but we are only able to do so coherently because we have a fixed idea of absolute light against which we compare them.

And so Wells's sociological speculations suffer from the defect of his metaphysical incoherence.  In one book, he examines (like Shaw) the Nietschzian idea of the Superman.  If the Superman is truly beyond the comprehension of men, they will react to him with simple indifference.  [Is our reaction to, for instance, the weather any different?]  It is only if a valid comparison to common men can be recognized that they will react to the Superman with awe or devotion.  And that comparison will always be made according to the same standards.  Jack's Giant may have viewed himself as a kind of Superman, but the only question for Jack was whether the Giant was good.  The fundamental measure, and hence the central characteristic, of man is moralness-- a spiritual quality.

And in other ways, hypothesizing a devotion to a proposed Superman misidentifies the essence of man.  We value courage, but courage is not a quality possessed by a Superman.  Rather, courage is a quality shown by the small man in challenging the Superman.

And, "If the Superman is better than we, of course we need not fight him; but in that case, why not call him the Saint?"

This fixation on the Superman who is beyond human is only a modern development.  Our ancient heroes were, instead, simply more human-- and that in their superior display of the central characteristics of humanity.  Achilles is heroic because his deeds on the battlefield emerge from his love of his fallen friend.  We cheer even the peasant who challenges Robin Hood when he grows too full of himself.  The hope of humanity is in the dignity and self-possession of the underdog.  It will be ever thus.  Utopia will have to wait.

------------------------

Wow.  This chapter is a tour de force.

Irony alert: Chesterton writes of the passing of the great scientific period-- in 1905.  The new advances in relativity and quantum dynamics were right on the doorstep.  It is interesting, though, that Einstein seemed to possess the same qualities that Chesterton admired in the great scientists: devotion to a simple idea, and the careful working out of the consequences.

On the other hand, we currently seem to be in a lull in the advance of fundamental science.  And yet, we do see self-aggrandizement on the part of those who wield scientific authority.  Look at the grand (and ever-changing, and ever-magnifying) predictions made by climate science in the popular press.  And the response of many is to tune them out, or to fight back.  Einstein didn't make political hay out of relativity.

What a wake-up call in Chesterton's diagnosis of the "health care" problem, even in his own time!  The mistake is-- still!-- in thinking that health is an ever-present problem needing daily management.  It is not.  Prudence demands planning and insuring against catastrophe.  Between emergencies, health is a condition to be celebrated, or a state to be simply maintained.

In his discussion of Utopia, Chesterton hits on the fundamental flaw in the liberal project: imagining that humanity's problems might be ultimately "solved", but only through a fundamental change in the essential character of man.  It imagines that man's vices-- greed, ambition, selfishness-- might be expunged, while simultaneously mischaracterizing man's virtues-- especially an individual's sense of self-worth-- as dangerous problems to be tamped down.  Ultimately, the thought that man can be manipulated stems from a rejection that there even is such a thing as human nature-- which either stems from or leads to the thought that there are no fundamental natures in anything at all.  Then, the problems that the meddler is trying to solve are problems only in the sense that they violate the observer's personal sense of justice-- and the meddling instinct stems from the egoistic assumption that that personal sense is sacrosanct.

Heretics, IV - Mr. Bernard Shaw

It is typical of an artist that he aims to display his work; but it is typical of an orator that he aims to disguise his true thoughts-- see Mark Antony, or Joseph Chamberlain.

Bernard Shaw is often viewed as capricious and flitting from ideal to ideal.  In actuality, he holds himself rigorously to an unchanging standard, and this puts him at odds with both the liberals and conservatives at different moments-- hence the perception.  And his unchanging standard is not to veer from calling things as they are-- no bending the use of words, or backing off of his own perceptions.  He'll call a white wine a yellow wine, and be right in doing so.

But this insistence also means he insists against any traditional ideals or moral standards.  He takes this too far, in the sense that he denies some of man's most central qualities, like giving laws, or making generalizations.

And Shaw's ultimate devotion is to an even worse ideal: he looks down upon Man, but always in comparison to the Superman.  In this, he makes the same grave error as Nietzsche from whom he learned the trick: his point of comparison is to a thing that isn't, rather than seeing and loving and being surprised at the thing that is. 

Better to view the world from a lack of pre-conceptions or expectations.  The man who does this will live a life of joy at the wondrousness of his surroundings.  It is true: the meek shall inherit the earth.

Shaw's way leads to further despair.  When he sees the gulf between humanity and his Superman, between the world and his adopted notion of Progress, he holds tightly to his notion and discards humanity, repudiates the world.  But the things that last have the opposite approach.  The Church was built on the Rock of a man who was an exemplar of the good that is only found against an expectation of nothing, "and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it."

--------------------------

This chapter got really beautiful by the end of it-- and in a hurry, too.  Good technique.

History I had to look up: Boer War (mentioned a few times already) -- British colonial conflict in present-day South Africa in the late 19th century.  Introduced the use of concentration camps by the British.

Heretics, III - On Mr. Rudyard Kipling And Making The World Small

In the great argument between the "bores" and the "bored" (the parochial and the cosmopolitan), let us come out on the side of the bores.  For it is they who discover life and substance in the everyday-- they are continually aroused to poetry by what they see around them.  They are as gods, who require to be fascinated by the familiar, for a god is surrounded only by the familiar.

As an example, look at the poetry that can be found in the ordinary: "Smith" (a noble profession battling with the hardest elements, and necessary for all great wars and conquests), "signal-box" (the last line of defense between life and death for the sea-farer), "letter-box" (the ultimate symbol of security and irrevocability).  To regard such things as unpoetical is to be languishing in what you have learned from too much prose.

Give him this, at least Rudyard Kipling has a flare for just this sort of embellishment.  He manages to see the honor in the ordinary.  He is often criticized for his admiration of things military; this is only incorrect insofar as his perception is just as awry as that of his critics.  A strong military is indicative of a weakened culture (else how could the military have gained strength over the populace?)  The organization that Kipling admires in the military could just as easily be admired in any other industry-- as all are necessary for the smoothness we find in our own lives.

Kipling's real problem is his cosmopolitanism.  By being a "citizen of the world", he fails to be a citizen of his country.  And while he thinks this gives him a grander view of the whole, in reality it gives him a feeble view of all.  Only the lover of a country can truly perceive that country, as he has given himself over to the country.  Only a lover can know his beloved; only a devoted religious can understand his religion; and in all these cases that knowledge grows the subject and thus shrinks (and withers? and darkens? and makes and brings suspicion upon?) the outside world. 

Those who belong nowhere can gain facts about many places, but those who belong somewhere occupy and grasp an entire universe.  The moss-covered stone is weighted with life.  The microscope enlarges the world while the telescope shrinks it.  In reality, true devotion infuses meaning into those things we encounter, however few.

--------------------------

I was struck in this chapter at the similarities between Chesterton and Mark Steyn-- and if I gave it any longer thought the similarities would probably multiply.  In this case, though, I'm thinking of Steyn's argument against multiculturalism: the big fraud of the multiculturalist state is that it actually absolves people from knowing anything about any other culture.  Facts are fleeting, and often we don't even bother with the facts, relying instead on portraying the proper sentiment.  What is needed, instead, is a strong cultural identity that citizens are eager to buy into.  Only this can produce true vitality in a populace.

Heretics, II - On The Negative Spirit

Say what you will about the mystics and their wild devotions, but at least they claim a clear vision of the Good, of an Ideal worth striving for.  Whereas in our current popular ethics, the most we do is point to a failing, to a bad end, and display it as the example of what is to be shunned.  Surely an ethic that only goes so far is lacking... something!

In another case, we hold up examples of diseased bodies to scare people away from the wrong path, rather than holding up examples of virtuous and ideal bodies to draw people to the right path. 

In literature, too, we have fallen into this mode.  Our "realism" literature [e.g. that of Isben] revel in showing bad behavior-- but do so no more than any past moral literature was able to do.  The difference is that current realism lacks any portrayal of the absolute good as a counterpart.  In the way that they only use negative portrayals or actions to make their ethical points, the literary realists are like dynamiting terrorists.  "Both realists and dynamiters are well-meaning people engaged in the task, so obviously ultimately hopeless, of using science to promote morality."

And here is the connection: Rationalism that shuns an orthodox understanding of Truth flails about and gets lost in the details-- for it has nothing else to use.  "Now we have fallen a second time, and only the knowledge of evil remains to us."

Any replacement concept we try to use is merely spinning our wheels.  "Liberty", "Progress", "Education" are all goals of gaining more of... an unknown, undefined, and unevaluated quantity.  H.G. Wells thinks he has located the purpose of man in parenting-- but that merely continues the line of man, toward what end?  Unsaid.  In this sense, Progressivism is a lie-- because unanchored "progress" can be made in any direction.  Without a prior moral doctrine.  "progress" is unmeaning.  And yet that group insists on not adopting a moral doctrine.

Heretics, I - Introductory Remarks On The Importance Of Orthodoxy

Once upon a time, men who argued for any conviction whatsoever would claim the mantle of orthodoxy-- for they at least would desire to claim to be right.  But now, men gleefully laugh at adopting the mantle of heresy, for the pursuit of rightness and truth is in itself viewed as misguided.  As a consequence, we hear the most outlandish statements [e.g. "Life is not worth living"] and shrug-- despite the absurdities it contains.

In the recent past, we allowed the exploration and proclamation of heresies, expecting in doing so that me might gain a greater awareness of and appreciation for the real truth.  Instead the very idea of the importance of truth was lost.  And because of that, we are far worse off than before.  Consider the treatment of Oscar Wilde: applauded for daring to publicly ridicule and defy the reigning social mores; jailed for personally living out what he proclaimed-- because his personal conviction of the supreme righteousness of his actions was over the line.

In place of large theories, we think we have found meaning examining the details of art, politics, literature. [Deconstruction?]  Yet it is the strong who look beyond themselves to external goals worth pursuing.  It is the weak who busy themselves with self-maintenance, turning inward and shrinking from the world.  The result of this cultural turn is bad art, bad politics, bad literature.  For the bold, in their boldness, were capable of extraordinary heresy as well [e.g. Milton's Satan]. 

A pursuit of practicality above all else, and the attendant shunning of grand theory, does fail and must fail.  So let us be bold, and have it out!

---------------------

This is so cool.  And the final paragraph is amazing, so I have to quote it in full:

Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down.  A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, 'Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light.  If Light be in itself good--' At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down.  All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality.  But as things go on they do not work out so easily.  Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil.  Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something.  And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes.  So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light.  Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.

I'm not crazy.  Thanks, Gil.

Heretics (G.K. Chesterton)

My first entry from the Religion category.  I wish I had started this when I read the Pope's books at Eucharistic Adoration, but perhaps I'll re-read those later.  Right now it seems that my religion books can be read in a non-sequential manner, but I think it makes sense to read Chesterton in order (Orthodoxy will follow), and probably C.S. Lewis right after that.

For the sake of economy, I got Ignatius Press's Collected Works version of Heretics.  This was a Christmas present from Mom and Dad the same year I got Lewis, I think-- they were both on my list.  The introduction gave me some biographical information about Chesterton that I did not now.  I suppose it's important to note while reading that he had not yet converted to Catholicism when this was written, though mentally he may already have made that leap.

I've read the first chapter of Heretics twice already.  There was so much in there that I want to remember, that it made me decide to branch out the blog to my entire library.  Too tired tonight to read it a third time, though.

Ecclesiastes

No notes on this one.  The book itself is a meditation of what our attitude toward life should be.  Obviously the famous passage is "To everything there is a season."  More important, I think, is the passage "There is nothing new under the sun."  We can't expect ultimate solutions to the problems and difficulties of life-- they've existed before us, they are universal.  Even our attempted solutions to the difficulties of life have been tried before.  Our attitude must be one of faithful acceptance.

Job - The Rest

My notes ended there-- it seemed the argument among the characters was finished.  Job's fourth friend arrived, and put each in his place.  The ultimate solution was to recognize that the greatness of God, and the designs of God, ultimately surpassed human understaning.  Our individual, finite experience of the world cannot tell us the ultimate meaning of the world, and we shouldn't expect it to.  Introduction of Leviathan and Behemoth, examples of the inscrutability of God's design.

Ultimately, Job was restored and his three friends punished.  Speaks to the importance of maintaining faith, even in the face of questioning.  Soulful searching for answers is perfectly all right-- righteous disparaging of the faithful, and of the searching, is not.

Job 21

Job: That's not even close to being true.  And you say suffering is placed on the wicked man's offspring?  What does he care?  Even death itself falls exactly equally on the wicked and righteous.

Job 20

Zophar: You're acting like you deserved your lot when things were prosperous.  Still not paying attention.  We know the wicked reach heights, but all wicked are eventually laid low.  And it's bad.

Job 19

Job: Not helping, guys.  My suffering is extended.  I have been fully abandoned.  But take note: I have not lost faith.  My questioning has not undermined my belief in what has been said.  It is just so hard.

Job 18

Bildad: We're not listening to you?  You're not listening to us!  And don't play these rhetorical games-- trying to draw out the absurdity of human suffering.  Yes, it's all true-- your sin has brought you low.  And it's further wickedness for you to insinuate otherwise.

Job 16-17

Job: But look at me!  Your words are of no comfort as I sit within my suffering.  From here, the understanding I had on the outside is insufficient.  My current experience demands new answers.

Job 15

Eliphaz: Awfully uppity of you, isn't it?  You're trying to talk your way around the central fact: sin results in suffering.  Deal with it.

Job 14

Job: Here's the unfairness of it all: We're born into a broken world, and all our experience is surrounded by badness.  This is what we know, and it shapes our lives-- all the cards are stacked against us.  THEN we die.  We were given one shot, and a handicapped shot at that, followed by an eternity of... the nothingness that follows the one shot.

COME ON.

(Me: this is where Purgatory is a grand solution-- death followed by the consequence of our life, with a knowledge of ultimate reality sustaining us.)

Job 12-13

Job: 12 - Don't condescend to me.  Don't pretend you just came up with some great insight.  I've come to the same conclusions about God as you.

13 - Look-- all these partial attempts at explanation aren't helping.  I need direct answers from God.  I need to know where we stand.  I need a fair hearing-- I must be allowed to make MY points fairly.  That's all I ask.  I need to know precisely how I merited suffering.