Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?

[NulliuSINverba]

"Man that is born of a woman is of few days and full of trouble.
He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not.
And doth thou open thine eyes upon such an one, and bringest me into judgment with thee?
Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one." ~ Job 14:1-4

"Not one?"

Q. - Assuming that Jesus existed, was he a "man that is born of a woman?"
Q. - Is God "one?" Is God "not one?"

If Jesus was a man that was born of a woman, then how could he have been considered clean? The Bible clearly indicates that NO ONE can bring something clean out of an unclean thing.

If you wish to assert that God can bring what is pure from the impure, then this scripture appears to be either (at best) contradictory or (at worse) demonstrably false.

 

[George-ananda]

I didn't vote because there wasn't an option:

* You have to use intelligence when viewing the Bible (an understand that ancient societies thought differently at different times).

 

[Nietzsche]

I voted 4, but I'd like to play a bit of Devil's(or God's, same thing really) Advocate;

No one implies human. One could argue that YHWH/God/Allah doesn't qualify.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I didn't vote because there wasn't an option:

* You have to use intelligence when viewing the Bible (an understand that ancient societies thought differently at different times).

How fortunate for us all that using intelligence isn't a prerequisite regarding posting (non-)replies to internet forums!

 

[NulliuSINverba]

No one implies human. One could argue that YHWH/God/Allah doesn't qualify.

Which is why I specifically asked if God counted as "one."

So you're saying that God is "No one" correct?

 

[Tumah]

"Man that is born of a woman is of few days and full of trouble.
He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not.
And doth thou open thine eyes upon such an one, and bringest me into judgment with thee?
Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one." ~ Job 14:1-4

"Not one?"

Q. - Assuming that Jesus existed, was he a "man that is born of a woman?"
Q. - Is God "one?" Is God "not one?"

If Jesus was a man that was born of a woman, then how could he have been considered clean? The Bible clearly indicates that NO ONE can bring something clean out of an unclean thing.

If you wish to assert that God can bring what is pure from the impure, then this scripture appears to be either (at best) contradictory or (at worse) demonstrably false.

Just wondering, where is the option for "It was a rhetorical question meant to suggest that only G-d can"?

 

[George-ananda]

How fortunate for us all that using intelligence isn't a prerequisite regarding posting (non-)replies to internet forums!

Yes, we should be restricted to four wrong answers so the OP can make a point about how incoherent Christian belief is.

 

[Nietzsche]

Which is why I specifically asked if God counted as "one."

So you're saying that God is "No one" correct?

No one is doing that, indeed. No one is blinding me, either.

 

[Baladas]

I chose option 4, because I consider life as sacred and pure. Not unclean.
I don't think it's fair to say that I actually consider the Christian faith to be "sick and twisted".

I do consider that particular belief (that people are born unclean) distasteful and wrong.
However, there are many positives to the faith, such as emphasis on brotherly love and care for the poor.

I have known many wonderful people who are Christians, and I have good friends who still are.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Yes, we should be restricted to four wrong answers so the OP can make a point about how incoherent Christian belief is.

There is a perfectly acceptable answer for Christians on that list. Perhaps you skimmed over them all too rapidly?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Just wondering, where is the option for "It was a rhetorical question meant to suggest that only G-d can"?

If we assume that the psalm contained a rhetorical question, are we obliged to view the answer ("No one can") as rhetorical as well?

 

[Tumah]

Which is why I specifically asked if God counted as "one."

So you're saying that God is "No one" correct?

Before you ask such an important question

If we assume that the psalm contained a rhetorical question, are we obliged to view the answer ("No one can") as rhetorical as well?

The entire verse can be understood rhetorically.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

The entire verse can be understood rhetorically.

And because it can be understood rhetorically, does it follow that it must be understood rhetorically?

 

[Tumah]

And because it can be understood rhetorically, does it follow that it must be understood rhetorically?

Well I guess that depends on the circumstances. If we have another reasonable explanation, then either could be true. But if there are no other available explanations, then there may not be a reason why this explanation is not true.

 

[George-ananda]

There is a perfectly acceptable answer for Christians on that list. Perhaps you skimmed over them all too rapidly?

No, I wasn't too rapid. I didn't see an option for liberal Christians that don't accept that what comes from a woman is unclean. These liberal Christians do not take the Bible literally and interpret things in a modern light.

I only got involved in this thread to point out how contrived the voting options were to favor condemnation of Christianity as 'sick and twisted'.

 

[rusra02]

"Man that is born of a woman is of few days and full of trouble.
He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not.
And doth thou open thine eyes upon such an one, and bringest me into judgment with thee?
Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one." ~ Job 14:1-4

"Not one?"

Q. - Assuming that Jesus existed, was he a "man that is born of a woman?"
Q. - Is God "one?" Is God "not one?"

If Jesus was a man that was born of a woman, then how could he have been considered clean? The Bible clearly indicates that NO ONE can bring something clean out of an unclean thing.

If you wish to assert that God can bring what is pure from the impure, then this scripture appears to be either (at best) contradictory or (at worse) demonstrably false.

Job was talking of humans, who cannot produce perfect offspring, being sinful and imperfect. (Romans 5:12) The angel sent to Mary told her; "no declaration will be impossible for God.” (Luke 1:37) The angel also explained to Mary that “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. And for that reason the one who is born will be called holy, God's Son" (Luke 1:35) God's Son was thus born sinless, I believe, protected in Mary's womb from her imperfections through the operation of God's spirit. BTW, Jesus is God's Son, not God himself.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Job was talking of humans, who cannot produce perfect offspring, being sinful and imperfect. (Romans 5:12) The angel sent to Mary told her; "no declaration will be impossible for God.” (Luke 1:37) The angel also explained to Mary that “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. And for that reason the one who is born will be called holy, God's Son" (Luke 1:35) God's Son was thus born sinless, I believe, protected in Mary's womb from her imperfections through the operation of God's spirit. BTW, Jesus is God's Son, not God himself.

Let's see. All humans are born sinful except for Jesus? Am I understanding you correctly?

Would you care to explain why your rationalization(s) shouldn't be dismissed as special pleading?

...

And while you're at it, perhaps you'd care to speculate as to why simple forgiveness of humanity's shortcomings appears to be a declaration that is impossible for God? Why do you suppose he felt obliged to resort to the elaborate Rube Goldberg device of crucifixion?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

No, I wasn't too rapid. I didn't see an option for liberal Christians that don't accept that what comes from a woman is unclean.

If you're going to insist that you've read the options, I'm now obliged to conclude that you didn't understand the options.

Would you care to explain why you find Option #3 objectionable? What about it disqualifies it as a clear distillation of the "liberal Christian" worldview? It doesn't admit that the scriptures are flawed and it allows God to do whatever it is that Christians claim God does. It also indicates that faith is the ultimate trump-card.

What was wrong with it? Too much implied cognitive dissonance?

These liberal Christians do not take the Bible literally and interpret things in a modern light.

There must be portions of the Bible that they take at face value, correct?

I only got involved in this thread to point out how contrived the voting options were to favor condemnation of Christianity as 'sick and twisted'.

At which you have failed.

While you are free to infer that all of the voting options are tantamount to condemning Christianity as "sick and twisted," it must be stressed that only one of the four options actually included the words "sick and twisted."

Perhaps you've reached your erroneous conclusions due to an amorphous reading (or comprehension) of the options?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Well I guess that depends on the circumstances. If we have another reasonable explanation, then either could be true. But if there are no other available explanations, then there may not be a reason why this explanation is not true.

So until an explanation has been demonstrated to be false, it should be accepted it as true? Is that what you're saying?

 

[George-ananda]

Would you care to explain why you find Option #3 objectionable? What about it disqualifies it as a clear distillation of the "liberal Christian" worldview? It doesn't admit that the scriptures are flawed and it allows God to do whatever it is that Christians claim God does. It also indicates that faith is the ultimate trump-card.

Let's take a look at option 3.

It is true that no one can, yet simultaneously true that somehow God can. You just gotta believe.

The first part 'It is true that no one can' is implying that what comes from a woman is unclean and nobody can change that. Hardly a position a modern liberal Christian would proclaim. The second part sounds like they are taking a leap of faith just to cover up apparently conflicting things. I think any person with a liberal modern view would be loathe to pick that option.

Liberals look at such things as the Book of Job as religious stories with a message that has to be viewed in the context of its time. Atheists like to pin conservative beliefs to Christians as that is easier to criticize.