[July 2006 journal entry]
Note that cursing ‘God’ (6:14) implies there is such a ‘God’ to curse. I eventually came to the conclusion that the concepts of ‘God’ within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm and variously represented in Job are just that – concepts – and concepts that are not credible -- linguistically (i.e., the limitations of morphic language), philosophically, theologically, or existentially (i.e., the breadth and depth of human suffering). In other words, I eventually concluded there is no such ‘God’ to curse (a conclusion that does not close, but instead opens, the possibility of other ways to consider a transcending reality). I do not find in Job indications that the ‘scrapheap’ Job has yet drawn this conclusion.
Note that cursing ‘God’ (6:14) implies there is such a ‘God’ to curse. I eventually came to the conclusion that the concepts of ‘God’ within the ‘religious’ T/O paradigm and variously represented in Job are just that – concepts – and concepts that are not credible -- linguistically (i.e., the limitations of morphic language), philosophically, theologically, or existentially (i.e., the breadth and depth of human suffering). In other words, I eventually concluded there is no such ‘God’ to curse (a conclusion that does not close, but instead opens, the possibility of other ways to consider a transcending reality). I do not find in Job indications that the ‘scrapheap’ Job has yet drawn this conclusion.
