Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    And likewise, an outspoken segment of Christianity (American varient)
    has (or had) identified the USSR (and communism in general) as the "Evil
    Empire".  Many people that I have known over the years identified
    Russia as the Apocalyptic agent of Satan and evil.
    
    I guess everyone needs an enemy in order to validate their own
    righteousness.  :^(
    
    	Eric

>Wherever did they get at such an idea?

    	From political leaders masquerading as religious ones. These
    leaders would have their followers believe that they are following
    God's will so that any opponent of those leaders must be under control
    of God's enemy. This is propaganda 101.

    			Alfred

>    And likewise, an outspoken segment of Christianity (American varient)
>    has (or had) identified the USSR (and communism in general) as the "Evil
>    Empire".  Many people that I have known over the years identified
>    Russia as the Apocalyptic agent of Satan and evil.

    Not the same thing at all. The US accepts the Moslem religion and gives
    it the same protection that it gives all other religions. The former
    USSR had made the Moslem and all other religions against the law.
    People of all religions were actively persecuted. 
    
    The former USSR was at least as evil as Hitler's Germany. I suppose you
    think calling that evil is over the top as well?

    			Alfred

    The recognition of the former Soviet Union as an "evil empire" seems to
    be confirmed by historical fact.  It was an "empire" and it was "evil"
    when the ordinary meanings are applied to the words.

    Even its defeated leader Mikail Gorbachev concedes both the military
    nature of the former Soviet Union (ie "empire") and concentration of
    wealth and power in the Communist Party (ie "evil") to be a source of
    regret and at the core of his failure to make his own kind of Communism
    work within the former Soviet Union.

    If your world-view is that Satan interposes himself between Allah, his
    believers, and the conquest of the world by the sword, then, indeed the
    United States is the "Great Satan".  I lived in Iran and saw this up
    close.

re Note 624.4 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     ... Mikail Gorbachev concedes ... concentration of
>     wealth and power in the Communist Party (ie "evil") 

        Do you believe that a concentration of wealth and power per
        se is evil, or only if it is concentrated in the Communist
        Party?

        Bob

    >I guess everyone needs an enemy in order to validate their own
    >righteousness.  :^(
    
    Not to mention the fact that politicians can always use a juicy enemy
    to drum up their popular support.
    
    -- Mike

>        Do you believe that a concentration of wealth and power per
>        se is evil, or only if it is concentrated in the Communist
>        Party?

	Nice, "when did you stop beating your wife" phrasing of a question.
	Intentional?

	I'm not Pat or Gorbachev, whose opinion Pat refered to, but I myself
	do not believe that a concentration of wealth and power per se is 
	evil. However, almost anything in evil hands can be used for evil.

			Alfred

    Gorbachev thought that concentration of wealth and power in the hands
    of the Communist elite was at the core of the popular revolution that
    removed him from power and specifically he characterized this in moral
    terms.

    The concentration of wealth and power that is alleged to exist in the
    United States may be evil.  Go ahead and make that case that it is.

Iran, as I recall, does consider itself a theocrisy.  Therefore, politics and
religion are necessarily intertwined, are they not?

Richard

Why has the United States been identified as "the Great Satan" instead of, say,
Canada, Brazil, or Korea?

Richard

    Because those contries can't do anything to Iran (etc). Why bring
    up countries you don't care about?
    
    		Alfred

    .11
    
    So, it is because of what the U.S. can do to Iran that the U.S. is
    identified as the Great Satan.  If other countries could do what the
    U.S. could do, would they too be perceived as the Great Satan?
    
    Richard
    

re Note 624.12 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     So, it is because of what the U.S. can do to Iran that the U.S. is
>     identified as the Great Satan.  If other countries could do what the
>     U.S. could do, would they too be perceived as the Great Satan?
  
        My mother's almost universal answer to why such situations
        exist is "they're just jealous."

        I suspect, as in most real-life cases, a number of things
        contribute to religious Iran's hatred of the U.S.  One is
        that we are big and powerful.  Another is that we are
        non-Muslim.  Yet another is that we support Israel.

        And, of course, "they're just jealous."

        Bob

Is there any truth to the allegation that the U.S. is the Great Satan?

Richard

    Richard,

    	If I had to pick a country as the Great Satan I'd be orders of
    magnitude more likely to pick Iran or Iraq then I would the US. I fact
    I'd be more likely to pick almost any country in Europe, Asia, South
    America or Africa then the US. Are their bad things about the US. Sure.
    Does our government do things I think are bad? Sure. Are we worse then
    some other countries? Probably. Are we better then the overwhelming
    majority? Without a doubt.

    			Alfred

    I wouldn't say the U.S. is the great Satan; however, I would submit the
    U.S. is becoming heavily under the influence of Satan.  Unfortunately,
    the only time we get a Christian label is when other nations see us as
    a pagan nation, I.E. If that's Christianity, they can keep it.
    
    I would like to get anybody's opinion on this.  Genesis chapter
    16:10-12 states as follows.
    
    "And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed
    exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.  And the
    Angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and bear a
    son, and shall call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy
    affliction.  And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every
    man and every man's hand against him.  And he shall dwell in the
    presence of all his bretheren."
    
    In this scenario, God is speaking to Hagar, the bondservant of Abraham. 
    Because of Abe's lack of faith that Sarah would conceive, he decided to
    help God out and have relations with young Hagar.  Because of this, the
    above prophecy has been and some believe is being seen TODAY!
    From my understanding, the Arabs consider Ishmael their Patriarch.  He
    is the father of the Moslim nations.  Do you feel that the prophecy was
    against Ishmael as an individual or against the whole nation.  It seems
    like the latter is true based on the turmoil over there, but what is
    your perspective?  We may find that great Satans can come in many
    different packages, even religious ones!
    
    -Jack

    RE: Why is the US seen as the Great Satan by Iran?

    Remember the Shah?  Although he went a long way to bring Iran into
    the 20th century, he was a bit of a despot with regard to his
    treatment of dissenters.  The Shah was supported, heavily, by the
    U.S., as well as other countries.  But it was the U.S. that gave
    him temporary refuge during his overthrow.  Then the Islamic
    zealots took the American embassy.  In answer to that, the U.S.
    froze the Iranian assets that were held in America.

    This tit-for-tat went on until Iran, under its theocracy, declared
    the U.S. as the Great Satan.  From their point of view, they see
    themselves as pious and devout Moslems, doing the will of Allah. 
    We, on the other hand, were doing all we could to bring about
    their downfall and world wide condemnation.

    If the U.S. were a theocracy, we most likely have responded in
    kind; referring to Iran as the Greater Satan, and Khomeini his
    archangel.  Heck, we've seen hints of it in this note's stream:
    "Certainly xxx is more the Great Satan the U.S."

    Eric

    Satan has a hand in every nation.  But I think that judging that by
    what happens in politics is a big mistake.  When the communists closed
    up China many in the West thought Christianity in China would dwindle
    because of the persecution.  When the window opened up again, we found
    out that Christianity had flourished under the persecution.  Don't
    judge a people by it's government.  I certainly wouldn't want to be
    judged based on mine.
    
    As for Iran...I remember a story by a guy I went to school with briefly
    named Calvin Hoe (I know...I don't know if he was the Cal Hoe formally
    of this file - he left DEC before I came in here).  He talked about
    living in Saudi and how at sometime during the week, they would lock
    everyone in the market square to watch the executions.  They would
    always find the Americans and shove them right up front.  They wanted
    them to see that they dealt with crimes seriously and they didn't just
    let murderers and the like go to kill again.  They see us as a great
    evil because we tolerate so much of it.  I frankly would have to agree.

    I know this will start a fury but...I agree with Jill.
    
    I think liberalism in this country is the greatest demonic influence
    in this country today.  And I will be glad to back up this claim with
    any statistics I can get my hands on.
    
    -Jack

    
    Don't worry Jack...we can fall down the hill together.
    
    Jill  :-)

re Note 624.19 by MSBCS::JMARTIN:

>     I think liberalism in this country is the greatest demonic influence
>     in this country today.  And I will be glad to back up this claim with
>     any statistics I can get my hands on.
  
        Jack,

        You are welcome to your choice, but I would choose the
        liberal USA any day over the illiberal Saudi Arabia or Iran.

        Bob

    .19
    
    >I think liberalism in this country is the greatest demonic influence
    >in this country today.
    
    Wherever did you get an idea like that?
    
    >And I will be glad to back up this claim
    >with any statistics I can get my hands on.
    
    You've probably heard it said:
    There are basically 3 kinds of lies - Lies, Damn lies, and Statistics.
    ;-)
    
    Richard
    

    I really think that it is foolish to link liberalism to Satan. Come
    on now!
    
    I don't agree with much of the liberal/socialist thinking...but....
    liberals are just people.
    
    Marc H.

    Would you agree that social liberalism has been a major cause of many
    of our problems?  To give a few examples...AIDS, Unwanted pregnancies,
    Sorftness on crime...Drug culture of the sixties, etc.  
    
    Richard, if statistics are worse than damn lies, then Clinton and Gore
    are constantly lying through their teeth!!
    
    ALL THINGS ARE LAWFUL BUT NOT ALL THINGS ARE PROFITABLE!!
    
    Peace,
    
    Jack

    RE: .24  Jack,
    
    			I don't know about Richard but I don't believe that
    social liberalism has been the major cause of many of our problems.  Me
    thinks you've been listening to Rush too long. ;-)   I see the problems
    you listed not as problems but as symptoms.  Most of the time, liberals 
    try to address those problems while conservatives seem to ignore them.
    A clasic example is Reagens three years of inaction to Aids and even
    then it was poorly addressed.  
    
    
    Dave

    Re: .25/.24
    
    Both of you are wrong...in my opinion. Both liberals and conservatives
    agree there are problems. The *method* of fixing the problem is the
    difference. You can't say that conservatives "don't care about aids"
    anymore than you can say that "liberals cause the family to break
    down".
    
    Marc H.

Note 624.24

>    Would you agree that social liberalism has been a major cause of many
>    of our problems?  To give a few examples...AIDS, Unwanted pregnancies,
>    Sorftness on crime...Drug culture of the sixties, etc.  

No.
    
>    Richard, if statistics are worse than damn lies, then Clinton and Gore
>    are constantly lying through their teeth!!

Bush, Reagan and Nixon *never* lied, now did they?

>    ALL THINGS ARE LAWFUL BUT NOT ALL THINGS ARE PROFITABLE!!

Is this a Bible quote?  I'm not familiar with it.

Richard

>>    Richard, if statistics are worse than damn lies, then Clinton and Gore
>>    are constantly lying through their teeth!!
>
>Bush, Reagan and Nixon *never* lied, now did they?
    
    What's your point? That Clinton is as bad as Bush? That Bush didn't
    lie? Or something else again?
    
>>    ALL THINGS ARE LAWFUL BUT NOT ALL THINGS ARE PROFITABLE!!
>
>Is this a Bible quote?  I'm not familiar with it.
    
    Try I Corinthians 6:12 and 10:23. They both say about the same thing.
    
	" All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient; 
    	all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the 
    	power of any." I Cor 6:12 
    
    			Alfred

Note 624.28

>    What's your point?

I'm saying we'd be hearing lies even if we had a conservative President.
    
>	" All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient; 
>    	all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the 
>    	power of any." I Cor 6:12 

Thanks, Alfred.

Richard

Let's cool down this exchange, OK?

Thanks,
Bob

Re: 24    

>>    			I don't know about Richard but I don't believe that
>>    social liberalism has been the major cause of many of our problems.  Me
>>    thinks you've been listening to Rush too long. ;-)   I see the problems
>>    you listed not as problems but as symptoms.  

      I agree in the sense that I believe the country is in spiritual
      bankruptcy.  We are now feeling the effects of this.
      And by the way, Rush may give his point of view but at least he backs
      it up with a source.  Liberal politicians are still making the mistake
      of thinking the electorate is uneducated and ignorant.  How paumpous!!

>>    Most of the time, liberals 
>>    try to address those problems while conservatives seem to ignore them.
>>    A clasic example is Reagens three years of inaction to Aids and even
>>    then it was poorly addressed.  

      Reagan's philosophy which I wholeheartedly agree with was summed up in
      these words...Get a life and take responsibility for your own actions.
      AIDS is a preventable disease you know!

      Warmest Rgds.,

      -Jack

	Jill mentioned in .18 that "Satan has a hand in every nation.", I 
	would agree with this in that the Bible clearly states that "The 
	whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." this wicked 
	one is identified as "The one called Devil and Satan...is misleading 
	the entire inhabited earth." 1 John 5:19, Revelation 12:9 NWT. So all 
	political rulers, whatever their leaning, are influenced by Satan the 
	Devil. Hence this Century we have seen mankind, whom generally long's 
	for peace and happiness, feel compelled to commit inhuman attrocities 
	against their fellowman. It would seem that some invisible power is 
	influencing persons to commit such wanton acts of violence.
  
	But, you might say "Satan is not the ruler of the world, but God is",
	well it is interesting to note Jesus' words in John 12:31 NWT "now the
	ruler of this world will be cast out." and John 14:30 NWT "for the
	ruler of the world is coming. And he has no hold on me," these passages
	clearly identify that the "ruler of the world" is in opposition to
	Jesus. The Bible also refers Satan as "the god of this system of things"
	2 Corinthians 4:4. 

	This is one reason that Jehovah's Witnesses take a neutral stance
	as regards politics. As Satan manoeuvres the political arena, they
	stay clear not allowing Satan or the world to squeeze them into 
	his/it's mold. 

	For more details, why not ask any Jehovah's Witness to obtain for
	you the tract "Who really rules the world?". From a Bible perspective 
	it clearly identifies who really is the ruler of this world. 

	Phil. 

    If 
    
    > it is interesting to note Jesus' words in John 12:31 NWT "now the	
    > ruler of this world will be cast out."
    
    how can Satan have a hand in every nation today?
    
    Eric

	Eric,

	Just to clarify your question, is it your understanding that Satan
	has already been cast out?. For Jesus was indicating that Satan
	would be cast out at a future date ("will be"), in that he will be 
	abyssed thereby no longer being able to influence mankind. This is 
	a future event that will happen at the end of the great tribulation,
	as fortold in Revelation 20:1-3 and this portion of Scripture mentions
	the reason for putting him in the abyss "that he might not mislead
	the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended." NWT.

	Phil.

    re .34

    Well, the verse you quoted said "NOW the ruler of the world will be cast
    out."                            ^^^

    Admittedly, if the context of *now* referred to some future point in
    time then my question is moot.  It's just that the snippet of Scripture
    that you quoted, taken by itself, would imply that the ruler of the
    earth is already cast out.
    
    Eric

    Hi Eric:
    
    Just thought I would write my thoughts out on this.  There is a string
    in Christian on Baptismal Regeneration, i.e. you cannot get saved
    unless you are baptized in water.  One of the verses discussed was
    this:
    
    "Repent and be baptized, every one of you FOR the remission of sins. 
    And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38
    
    If you go to the original greek the word "for" is translated eis which
    is translated, On The Basis Of or Because Of.  The word "For" has 10
    conjugations and the wrong translation can change the meaning of a
    verse.  In fact, if a whole Bible translation is incorrectly
    translated, it can hurt the integrity of the entire context!
    
    All this to say that the word, "Now" can also have different
    applications just as the word FOR does.  
    Since the tribulation period is in the future (perhaps soon), I agree
    that Satan is still the Prince of the Power of the Air.  She still has
    control over this world!
    
    -Jack

    
    Jack,
    
    > I agree that Satan is still the Prince of the Power of the Air.
    > She still has control over this world!
    
    I'm rolling!!!  I love it Jack.  That's too funny.  I mean, hey, 
    if God can be Goddess, why not Satan being Sataness or Madame Satan.  
    :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  
    
    Jill

re .34

	Eric,
	
	OK I now understand your question. And as you say we need to
	look at the context to help us understand the meaning. The word 
	NOW has a few meanings, one being "to introduce an important point
	or indicate a transition (eg now if we turn to the next aspect
	of the problem). The important point that Jesus was making is
	that, Satan's influence will at sometime be taken away. Giving 
	people a hope of better things in the future, for who would want
	to live forever if the suffering and misery we see today remained?
	(Revelation 21:3,4). Killing innocent children in a high street,
	such as what happened in Warrington UK a week last Saturday, is 
	inhuman and yet carried out by humans. There must be some invisible 
	force that is influencing persons to commit such attrocities, which 
	adult in their right mind would run the risk of killing innocent 
	children? and yet this Century many innocent people have been 
	killed in the name of peace/justice, what a paradox!.

	However, my reason for using this verse John 12:31 was purely to 
	point out that the ruler of this world is in opposition to Jehovah God 
	and his Son Jesus Christ.

	Phil.   

      Re: .40

      >>  There must be some invisible force that is influencing persons to 
      >>  commit such attrocities, which adult in their right mind would run 
      >>  the risk of killing innocent 
      >>  children? and yet this Century many innocent people have been 
      >>  killed in the name of peace/justice, what a paradox!.

      Phil:

      Do you agree that this force is actually a created being?

      -Jack
	

	Jack,

	;Do you agree that this force is actually a created being?

	Let's just say that this force is in reality a spirit creature Satan
	the Devil and other spirit creatures who have followed in his
	rebellion. As Ephesians 6:12 NWT puts it "because we have a wrestling,
	not against blood and flesh, but against governments, against the
	authoritites, against the world rulers of this darkness, against
	the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places."

	Phil.

    Is this polytheism.
    
    
    One good god
    
    One bad god?

    Perhaps the question might be posed this way:
    
    Did God create Satan?  Did God create evil?
    
    Richard
    

re Note 624.40 by YERKLE::YERKESS:

>         Killing innocent children in a high street,
> 	such as what happened in Warrington UK a week last Saturday, is 
> 	inhuman and yet carried out by humans. There must be some invisible 
> 	force that is influencing persons to commit such atrocities, which 
> 	adult in their right mind would run the risk of killing innocent 
> 	children? and yet this Century many innocent people have been 
> 	killed in the name of peace/justice, what a paradox!.

        I don't claim that there isn't such an "invisible force", but
        I think we ignore our own individual and collective
        responsibilities for the evil in the world if claim that an
        "invisible force" (outside the human race) MUST be
        responsible for inciting evil in the world.

        To say that something is "inhuman and yet carried out by
        humans" is to make a very big and untenable assumption about
        exactly what is and is not a "human" act.

        I think we humans are quite capable of causing and
        influencing others to cause all the atrocities of human
        history.  I can't prove that an outside influence wasn't
        involved in some of this, but you can't prove that an outside
        force was essential in its causation.

        Bob

Re:  .43

No, not polytheism.  There is but one God.

However, there is a civil war going on.  Satan, as the
best and brightest of the angels decided (just like Adam
and Eve) to rebel taking a number of angels with him.
The victory that God will win (has won) is not only over 
Satan, the victory is also over sin which Satan encourages 
in us as part of his war against God (as we are God's
special creation, loved and cherished by Him).

Collis

    Bob:                                                                  
    
    I agree with you in the sense that Lucifer caused his own demise. 
    Since there was no spiritual being to influence him/her, it shows that
    potential evil stems from our free volition. Romans 7 gives an
    excellent illustration of the battle between the flesh and the Spirit.
    Otherwise, we would not be held accountable for our sins and hence 
    wouldn't need to be redeemed.  I do agree that Satan and demons have an 
    influencial power within our lives.  As I have stated in the past, we
    as humans need to take responsibility over our own actions.  (Adam and
    Eve pointed fingers and it didn't wash.)
    
    Re: .43
    
    Ann:
    
    If one is a Satan worshipper, I guess it could be termed polytheism if
    you consider the created equal to the creator.  This is what God
    (Eloihim) says about Lucifer:
    
    "How art thou fallen from heaven O Lucifer, son of the morning!  How
    art thou cut down, thou who did weaken the nations!  For thou hast said
    I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of
    God, I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides
    of the north, I will ascend myself above the heights of the clouds, I
    shall be like the most High.  Yet thou shall be brought down to hell,
    to the sides of the pit.  Isaiah 14:12-15.
    
    To make ones self equal to God has a little title to it.  It is called
    Blasphemy.  As we see, one of God's created made an attempt at doing
    this and consequentally, incurred the worst judgement in the universe.   

    I have always wondered about Satan. I know that evil is real, and that
    a "Satan" type person would explain a lot...but....if Satan was a
    former fallen angle, *WHY* does God allow him/it to exist?
    
    Marc H.

    re .48
    
    > *WHY* does God allow him/it to exist?
    
    Marc,
    
    That same question was running through my head... you just beat me
    to the keyboard! :^)                   
    
    Eric

    Here is an interesting twist, if we are sinners and deserving of the
    same fate as Satan, then why does God allow us to exist?
    
    I believe it is because God's love for us exceeds all.  Why He allows
    Satan to exist, only God knows!  The only logical answer I can think of
    is to fulfill the prophecies of Revelation, i.e. it was His perfect
    will.
    
    -Jack

re .45

	Bob,

	By using the term "inhuman" I am not saying that humans are not 
	capable of making such attrocities themseleves, but that the 
	human tendency is to desire peace and goodwill toward men. We
	are all born with consciences that tell us that killing 
	innocent children is wrong. 
	
	With this in mind, then there are some questions that need answering:

	If the desire of mankind is to seek peace, then why is it so difficult 
	obtain?. This Century gross wickedness has been carried out by people 
	who on the main long for peace and happiness, how can this be?. 

	Could the answer be an invisible force?

	But, you say that there is not much in the way of proof to indicate
	that invisible forces are influencing the world in general. Well
	it is difficult to prove that invisble things exist, take 
	electricity for example. I personally can't prove that electricity
	exists, but I can see the effects of electricity eg a light bulb.
	Also one can look to authorities for proof of it's existance, such
	as scientists. Now, regarding Satan and his influence the effect
	is mankinds rebellion against God which began with Adam and Eve.
	Another effect is the suffering that man incurs, of which much
	is due to greed or "me first" attitude rather than making
	application of the golden rule. The world's spirit is help yourself
	rather than help your neighbour, in otherwords lookout for number 1.
	If the world was in the ruled by Jehovah God then the world's 
	spirit would be to apply the golden rule as well as making love
	of God first in our lives. The authority we can turn to is no other 
	than the Grand Creator of all things, that is Jehovah God (Rev 4:11), 
	he has communicated to mankind through the pages of the Bible (just
	as scientists communicate via journals) who and what Satan the Devil 
	is. The Bible identifies Satan as the "ruler of the world" (John 12:31,
	1 John 5:19) and is leading mankind on a destructive course.

	One point I would like to make is that, humankind will still be held
	accountable for their actions eventhough they are influenced by Satan
	the Devil.

	re .48

	Marc,

	As to why Jehovah God, allows Satan to exist after his rebellion.
	In fact why does God permit suffering at all, well there is an answer
	and perhaps I can address it tomorrow if circumstances permit.

	Phil.

    Patricia:
    
    I apologize...I called you Ann a few replies back.  I went to school
    with Ann Flanagan who also lived down the street from me growing up.
    Guess I had her in my mind when I was writing you!
    
    -Jack

re .51

	> By using the term "inhuman" I am not saying that humans are not 
	> capable of making such attrocities themseleves, but that the 
	> human tendency is to desire peace and goodwill toward men.  

       I disagree.  I think the human tendency is toward self
       preservation and independence.  We have to work at it to be
       "good", but being "bad" comes naturally.  

       > We are all born with consciences that tell us that killing 	
       > innocent children is wrong.

       Are we born with the value or is it a learned value? 
	

       > If the desire of mankind is to seek peace, then why is it so
       > difficult obtain?.

       I think because the desire of mankind is to serve itself, not to seek
       peace. 


       > Could the answer be an invisible force?

       Yes. I believe the human psyche.

       > Now, regarding Satan and his influence the effect is mankinds
       > rebellion against God which began with Adam and Eve.

    It seems you are suggesting that Satan's influence is greater than our
    God given natural desire to "seek peace".
	
       > Another effect is the suffering that man incurs, of which much	
       > is due to greed or "me first" attitude rather than making
       > application of the golden rule.

       How about the suffering man incurs from natural disasters,
       diseases, birth defect.... Are these all brought on by God or
       Satan?  Is it God's will... or wrath?  Is it because a pair of
       humans, from the very origins of mankind, disobeyed a single
       instruction of God?  

       > The world's spirit is help yourself rather than help your
       > neighbour, in otherwords lookout for number 1.

       This is not Satan, this is human nature, in my opinion.
	

       > If the world was in the ruled by Jehovah God then the world's 	
       > spirit would be to apply the golden rule as well as making love	
       > of God first in our lives. The authority we can turn to is no
       > other than the Grand Creator of all things, that is Jehovah God
       > (Rev 4:11), he has communicated to mankind through the pages
       > of the Bible (just as scientists communicate via journals)
       > who and what Satan the Devil is. The Bible identifies Satan as
       > the "ruler of the world" (John 12:31, 1 John 5:19) and is
       > leading mankind on a destructive course.

       I'm sorry, but I don't care how we like to dance around the
       semantics, or what ancient phraseology we can dig up to show that
       "now" means "later", or what ever, this God/Satan stuff seems
       polytheistic in the classical sense.  The clash of the
       supernatural Titans: The good Jehovah vs. the evil Satan.  Where
       even the more power of the two (Jehovah) isn't ALL powerful over
       the evil one.  The good god must be invoked by a human... sort of
       a tag team approach: Jehovah doesn't just jump in and help you,
       you have to invite him in.  The bad one, however can jump in at
       will... or so it seems.  Maybe it's just the lack of "tagging"
       the Jehovah god that results in the evil one jumping in the ring.

                                                              
       I just don't get it, I guess.  But that's the problem when you
       understand the Truth and others reject it :^)

       Eric

    Eric:
    
    Just out of curiosity, do you believe the account of Job to be
    truthful, i.e. it actually happened, or do you believe it was a myth?
    
    Also, how do you account for Jesus having such great wisdom, to 
    proclaim in his teachings that Satan is an actual being?
    
    Best,
    
    -Jack 

    re .54
    
    FYI:
    
    > Just out of curiosity, do you believe the account of Job to be
    > truthful, i.e. it actually happened, or do you believe it was a myth?
    
    I believe that it is a myth; a parable
    
    > Also, how do you account for Jesus having such great wisdom, to
    > proclaim in his teachings that Satan is an actual being?
    
    Given that the science of psychology, psychoanalysis, etc. attributing
    the darker side of human nature to a supernatural being got the point
    across (good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, desire, temptation, etc.) in a
    mataphore that was understandable by His contemporaries.  One doesn't
    get into the details of current theory when teaching a child not to
    play with an electrical receptical; one simply says "Leave it alone. If
    you stick your finger in there the electricity will 'bite' you".  When
    the child mature, gains more knowledge of the world around them, such
    metaphores are no longer necessary or helpful.
    
    Eric                                          

    Re: 55
    
    Were the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel account of the fall of Lucifer
    perpetrated by the myth (metaphor) of the Garden of Eden, i.e. the
    serpent representing Satan?  In this case we have a metaphor (serpent)
    personified as an angelic being (yet another metaphor).
    So when Jesus called him the father of lies, he was referring to our
    evil side?  Do you think Jesus believed Satan to be a real person based
    on his study of the Hebrew scriptures or did he know it was a metaphor
    in the first place.  But if Satan represents our dark side, then the
    parable of Job DOES NOT teach the lesson of God's sovereignty which it
    was meant to teach.  It must teach that Job caused his own demise from
    his dark side, correct?
    
    Confused,
    
    Jack

    re .56

    Yes.

    Yes.

    He knew it was a metaphor.

    Job teaches that stuff happens.  That blaming it on God isn't right. 
    That doing what is right and having faith will help you persevere.

    Because bad things happen doesn't mean it's our fault, necessarily,
    nor does it mean that they are the result of a demon.

    
    Of course it goes without saying that this is simply my understanding
    of the lessons the Bible teaches.  It must be true since I got it from
    the Bible :^)
    
    	Eric
    
    

    .57
    
    Eric,
    
    I know this will meet with some flak, as it seems it invariably does,
    but Rabbi Harold Kushner, in his book _When Bad Things Happen to Good
    People_, agrees with you.
    
    Richard
    
    Addendum: Before the flak starts, I want everyone to know I've already
    heard all the criticisms of Rabbi Kushner.
    

RE .53

	Eric,

	If man doesn't desire peace, then why has he established the 
	United Nations? which is supported by the majority of nations
	throughout the world.

	BTW I am not disagreeing that being "bad" comes naturally.
	AS Jesus said "The spirit, of course, is eager, but the flesh
	is weak." Matthew 26:41 NWT in otherwords mankind wants to do 
	good, but his fleshly inclination is to do bad.

	The Bible also shows that mankind are given a conscience, Romans
	2:14,15 NWT reads "For whenever people of the nations that do not 
	have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although
	not having law, are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who
	demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts,
	while their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between
	their own thoughts, they are being accussed or even excused."


       > Now, regarding Satan and his influence the effect is mankinds
       > rebellion against God which began with Adam and Eve.

;    It seems you are suggesting that Satan's influence is greater than our
;    God given natural desire to "seek peace".

	No, mankind has the desire to seek peace but he wants to do it
	on his own terms and not God's. All that Satan has to do is promote
	that spirit of independance. 

;       I'm sorry, but I don't care how we like to dance around the
;       semantics, or what ancient phraseology we can dig up to show that
;       "now" means "later", or what ever, this God/Satan stuff seems
;       polytheistic in the classical sense.

	At no point have I suggested that "now" means "later" and the
	"ancient phraseology" you mentioned was an English dictionary.
	"now" can mean that one is introducing an important point or
	indicating a transition. Now, the Bible identifies Satan as the 
	"god of this systems of things" 2 Corinthians 4:4 NWT, so the 
	idea of "God/Satan stuff" comes from the Bible itself but it can 
	be found in other religions as well. The Bible shows that there 
	are many god's but only one that should  be given exclusive 
	devotion.

	More on your reply later....

  	Phil.

      >>  The Bible shows that there are many god's but only one that should be 
      >>  given exclusive devotion.

	There are other gods but only in the sense they are idols, i.e.
	The Word was God but The Word was not "a god", correct?

	-Jack

re Note 624.59 by YERKLE::YERKESS:

> 	If man doesn't desire peace, then why has he established the 
> 	United Nations? which is supported by the majority of nations
> 	throughout the world.

        I don't think anyone here is claiming that human beings are
        all bad -- but we do claim that there is SOME bad.  That
        "some bad" may be enough to lead to the grossest of
        atrocities, just as the "some good" can lead to wonderful
        accomplishments at other times.

> 	BTW I am not disagreeing that being "bad" comes naturally.

        OK.

> 	No, mankind has the desire to seek peace but he wants to do it
> 	on his own terms and not God's. All that Satan has to do is promote
> 	that spirit of independance. 

        Sure, but people do a lot to promote their own independence
        from God, don't you agree?  How can you, simply by
        observation, conclude that there MUST be a Satan?

        Bob

    RE .58

    Thanks for the info., Richard.  I'll have to swing by my local book
    store and check this out.

    RE .59  

	> If man doesn't desire peace, then why has he established the 
	> United Nations? which is supported by the majority of nations
	> throughout the world.

    What I said was that humans have a desire for self preservation and
    independence.  If we can achieve that goal (self preservation)
    through peaceful means then fine, if not then we will resort to more
    aggressive, violent means.  When the chips are down we will fight over
    the last loaf of bread for our children, not peacefully yield it for
    our neighbors'.  

    I'm not saying that our basic nature is to sink to some level of
    depravity.  As you pointed out, we do have a conscience.  This acts
    as a trip mechanism that keeps us from going into a morality
    free-fall. Hopefully our conscience keeps us on the human side of the
    equation; preventing us from falling into the animal side.  But based
    on what I read in the newspapers, this isn't always the case. :^(

    FWIW, the U.N. is hardly an altruistic organization where all members
    are treated as equals.  But regardless; the fact that we are CAPABLE
    of altruism or acting in ways that are not exclusively self serving,
    is not an indication that this is our basic human nature.  


	> No, mankind has the desire to seek peace but he wants to do it
	> on his own terms and not God's. All that Satan has to do is promote
	> that spirit of independence.

    I guess I just don't believe that there is a dark spirit form/force
    that penetrates my psyche and encourages me to do bad things.  In
    other words I don't buy the old Flip Wilson (remember Geraldine?)
    line: "The Devil made me do it". 


	> At no point have I suggested that "now" means "later" and the
	> "ancient phraseology" you mentioned was an English dictionary.
    	   ....

    Sorry about that Phil.  I was starting to rant and rage there for a
    minute... it was disgusting: I was breathing hard, my heart was
    racing, my voice had reached a distorted staccato pitch, and I nearly
    soiled myself. :^)  My rantings were not directed at you necessarily,
    but at noting styles in general, where one person will say that "Well
    the Bible says xxx" and someone else chimes it and says "But in the
    original Hebrew xxx really means yyy.  So therefore even though, on
    the surface, it looks like Jesus said 'up' he really meant 'over and
    to the left a bit'."      


    Peace,
    	Eric

    Eric:
    
    You've explained your position adequately except for one part.  From
    reading it, the account of Job shows Job in the eyes of God to be
    blameless and upright.  Job's stumbling came After his demise.
    He didn't recognize God's sovereignty in his own life and questioned
    God..kind of like saying, Why Me?!  
    If Job was blameless and upright, then Satan's assault at the beginning
    of Job seems to illustrate that their was a third party (Satan, the
    person) trying to insight havoc in Job's life.  Remember, all these bad
    things happened while Job was blameless and upright so it couldn't have
    been his dark side.  The parable and your explanation seem to
    contradict one another.  
    
    -Jack   

Re: .62 Eric:


@@	> At no point have I suggested that "now" means "later" and the
@@	> "ancient phraseology" you mentioned was an English dictionary.
    	   ....

@@    Sorry about that Phil.  I was starting to rant and rage there for a
@@    minute... it was disgusting: I was breathing hard, my heart was
@@    racing, my voice had reached a distorted staccato pitch, and I nearly
@@    soiled myself. :^)  My rantings were not directed at you necessarily,
@@    but at noting styles in general, where one person will say that "Well
@@    the Bible says xxx" and someone else chimes it and says "But in the
@@    original Hebrew xxx really means yyy.  So therefore even though, on
@@    the surface, it looks like Jesus said 'up' he really meant 'over and
@@    to the left a bit'."      

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

	Eric, your a riot!  Well, it is apparent my illustration of Acts 2:38
perhaps bothered you.  Well, I'm sorry if I made you soil yourself Eric, but
I was simply trying to point out that prepositions transliterated incorrectly
can give the verse and perhaps the whole Bible a different meaning.

Please don't get mad...let me give you one more itty bitty example.  This one 
is obvious so it won't bother you.

	"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was WITH God and the Word
         was God."  John 1:1   KJV

	"In the beginning was the word, and the word was A god and the word was
   	 God"

See the difference?  Different translators have been guilty of using the wrong
transliteration of a text to satisfy their teachings.  This is why study of
the scriptures is so important.  My explanation of the word "For" in Acts 2:38
has been of scholarly debate for quite some time, it is not something to be 
taken lightly.  Check the original greek for the word, "Now" and see what it
means, you may learn something!

-Jack

RE .60

	Jack,

	Do you believe that Satan is a real person? If yes, then he cannot
	be an idol or carved image. Therefore the Bible also terms real persons 
	as gods, as in 2 Corinthians 4:4. From what I remember god means 
	"powerful one" or "mighty one", However there is only one God Almighty.

	;The Word was God but The Word was not "a god", correct?

	I think you know what my answer is to this, seeing that I am
	a Jehovah's Witness -).

	Phil.

    re .64

    Thanks for your input, Jack.  It's just that I have a general
    frustration with idea that all the many translations of Scripture into
    English are so inadequate that we, ourselves, have to do our own
    personal translations.  We've got the Revised Version, American
    Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, Revised Standard Version
    with 2d ed. NT, New American Bible, King James Version, New King James,
    New American Bible, New International Version, Jerusalem Bible, Today's
    English Version, New English Bible, Revised English Bible... 

    No offense, but if a battalion of linguistic and biblical scholars
    can't get it right, why should I think you (or anyone here) could be
    more accurate and less biased in translating ancient Greek to English.


    RE . 65

    > I think you know what my answer is to this, seeing that I am a
    > Jehovah's Witness -).

    Showing my ignorance, yet again, I haven't a clue how you would answer
    the question.  Perhaps you could help me here.  Most of my knowledge of
    Jehovah's witnesses comes from Jay Leno jokes, unfortunately.
    
    
    		Eric

>>    Thanks for your input, Jack.  It's just that I have a general
>>    frustration with idea that all the many translations of Scripture into
>>    English are so inadequate that we, ourselves, have to do our own
>>    personal translations.  We've got the Revised Version, American
>>    Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, Revised Standard Version
>>    with 2d ed. NT, New American Bible, King James Version, New King James,
>>    New American Bible, New International Version, Jerusalem Bible, Today's
>>    English Version, New English Bible, Revised English Bible... 

Point well taken; however I believe God allows these differences to spur on
discussion which will help us to grow.

>>    No offense, but if a battalion of linguistic and biblical scholars
>>    can't get it right, why should I think you (or anyone here) could be
>>    more accurate and less biased in translating ancient Greek to English.

Maybe it is just the way I am, but I feel these notes are derived mainly by
opinion either out of the blue or based on evidence.  Based on this, I rarely
get offended at anything.  If I say A is pretty and you say it is ugly, hey,
no prob.  If you say Satan doesn't exist and Job is a parable, it only makes
me question the source of your belief but I respect your belief.  I even
    concede that you may be right in this.  Now I want to check it out to
    see if I can find the truth.  Good challenge!

    RE . 65

    > I think you know what my answer is to this, seeing that I am a
    > Jehovah's Witness -).

>>    Showing my ignorance, yet again, I haven't a clue how you would answer
>>    the question.  Perhaps you could help me here.  Most of my knowledge of
>>    Jehovah's witnesses comes from Jay Leno jokes, unfortunately.
  
I respect Phil's beliefs and respect his ability to back those beliefs with
scripture.  Again I only question the validity of Phil's sources.

Phil, when I quote John 1:1 of the King James and compare it to John 1:1 of the
NWT (New World Translation), it is clear to see that a small preposition
drastically changes the context of the verse, the person of Jesus, the person
of God the Father, really the nature of Christ.  My comparison is NOT meant as
an assault toward anybody's version or belief.  It is however, a challenge
toward greater learning.  Is the Word God, or is the Word "a god"?  One can be
right while the other wrong, they can both be wrong, but they cannot both be 
right.  This is where the rubber meets the road and we must dig to the core to
find the truth.  Surely Phil you know that Jehovah God commanded us to test the
spirits!

-Jack
                                                 

RE .66

	Eric,

	I'll have to show my ignorance, I have never heard of Jay Leno, but
	that is probabally not surprising seeing that I live in the UK.

	The answer would be 

	"In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and
	the Word was a god." John 1:1 NWT 

	There are other Bible translations that render John 1:1 similarly. 

	Jehovah's Witnesses believe that there is only one true God, whos
	name is Jehovah (Psalms 83:18 KJV). Uniquely, Jesus was created
	alone by Jehovah, for all other things were created "through"
	Jesus Christ Colossians 1:15,16. If you read these verses you
	will see that Jesus is the image of God. Also the title Christ
	identifies Jesus as the Messiah or Jehovah's "Anointed One", he
	is also now the mediator between man and God (John 14:6). Jesus
	viewed himself as a separate person to God, as brought out in
	John 17:3 NWT "This means everlasting life, their taking in
	knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you
	sent forth, Jesus Christ." In this prayer he identifies his Father
	as the only true God, and himself separately.

	Sorry, but I couldn't just print John 1:1 without a little background.
	It is time to go home here in the UK, enjoy your afternoon.

	Phil.

re .67

	Jack,

	I was a little slow to added .68 and did so without reading your
	reply first. I'll try and comment tomorrow.

	Phil.

    
    RE: 68
    
    Ah but Phil...Jesus also said that if you know me you know the Father.
    He couldn't have said that if they were not one and the same.  How
    can knowing someone who you claim to be created be the same as knowing
    the One who has always and will always exist?
    
    Jill

    .70
    
    True, but there are other parts of the gospel where Jesus makes
    a clear and distinct separation between himself and God.
    
    "Why do you call me good? Only God is good," Jesus said, and in another
    instance, "Only the Father knows," indicating that he did not.
    
    Richard
    
    PS  This topic is *really* drifting.

    
    I noticed it was drifting too...so I wasn't gonna reply but I've
    just gotta say...yep...my point was if you take a verse you can
    make it say just about anything.  We need to look at the whole
    Word.
    
    Sorry for the tangent...back to the evil one...no not Mike V....
    Satan.   ;^)  Hee hee...

    John 1:1 is discussed elsewhere in this file.  Both translations
    are possible.  Because of its Gnostic overtones, the verse was a
    hotly debated point in deciding whether or not to keep the gospel
    of John in the canon.
    
    I am of the belief that Christ is the Word.  The Bible is the word.
    Your mileage may vary.
    
    Richard
    

    I will not drift further after this but I believe the dispute was
    regarding the original language always had the subject following the
    predicate.  The basis was that there is no definite article, therefore,
    the indefinite (A god) is implied.  They claim the text would've read:
    
    The Word was The God.
    
    And they are right.  However,
    just because John didn't write the definite article doesn't mean the
    indefinite should be implied.
    
    The Word was God.  
    
    It says the same thing as "The Word was The God", it's just not
    grammatically correct to insert "The" even though "The" is the correct
    definite article.
    
    Colossians 1 says, "And he is the image of the invisible God, the
    firstborn of every creature.
    
    Firstborn - JW's interpretation - Prototakos meaning created being.
    Actual greek is ProtoTOKOS - Having Preeminence over all things.
    
    Back to Satan!!
    
    -Jack
    

re Note 624.66 by APACHE::MYERS:

>     No offense, but if a battalion of linguistic and biblical scholars
>     can't get it right, why should I think you (or anyone here) could be
>     more accurate and less biased in translating ancient Greek to English.

    >Sorry for the tangent...back to the evil one...no not Mike V....
    >Satan.   ;^)  Hee hee...
    
    Whew, that's a relief.  :-)

    RE.74
    
    >  Back to Satan!!
    
    No, Jack! Don't do it! Don't go back to Satan; stay here with.... 
    
    Oh wait... I see. 
    
    You mean get the *subject* back to Satan.... Ahh, never mind.
    
    :^)
    
    		Eric

    OOhh your a riot Eric...A real Riot!!! (Ralph Cramdens Voice)

	Phew!! I'm glad that we didn't go to far off on a tangent.

	re .70

	Jill, I'll send email offline.

	re .74

	Jack, regarding John 1:1, if you like we can discuss in the appropriate
 	note.


	As regards, why has God permitted Satan to continue to exist?, well
	there are a couple of underlying issues that need to be addressed
	before Satan is finally annihiliated and suffering is brought to an 
	end for all eternity (Revelation 21:3,4).

	Now, right back in the beginning God gave the first human couple, the
	perfect start to life. Their commission from God was to extend the
	barriers of the paradise garden, with their offspring enjoying
	peace and security (in fact they had the prospect of living forever
	on a paradise). So if this was God's intention, then what went wrong?

	If you read the Genesis Chapter 3 account, you will see that they
	misused their free will. They lost sight of the fact that they would
	not prosper if they lived apart from God and his laws. They decided
	to be independenct of God. Thinking that by doing so, that they would
	improve their lives. What they had done was step out of the 
	boundaries of their free will, rather like a fish who jumps out
	of the boundaries of a fishtank. While in the water the fish is free
	to swim around, however when it leaves the water it is stranded and
	eventually dies. Humans have relative freedom.

	So the first issue, is that the first human couple had brought up 
	was Jehovah's right to rule as Universal Sovereign. His right to rule 
	had been challenged by them. The second issue, was there something 
	wrong with God's creation - man?. These two issues I hope to expand 
	on in my next reply, which I'll have to write later. You will see
	that Satan is involved in this. 

	Phil.

	Reference material : Publication "Does God Really Care About Us?"

    By the way Eric, just out of curiosity, I looked at the commentary on
    the Book Of Job, to see what their stand was on the authenticity of the
    book, i.e. fact or fable.  
    
    It turns out Job is cited in two chapters of Ezekiel and James chapter
    5.  Ezekiel mentions Job along with Abraham and somebody else, (can't
    recall who).  
    
    I am certainly open to the possibility that Job is allegorical;
    however, Ezekiel and James acknowledgement of Job being an actual
    person holds validity to the possibility of Job being a real person and
    the trials he went through are documented accurately.
    
    -Jack
        

    Jack,

    At the risk of sounding terse, I have neither the mental nor intestinal
    fortitude to get into a discussion on whether one book or chapter or
    verse of the Bible proves the inerrant literalness of another.  I know
    that isn't exactly what you said, but I fear that is where it will
    lead.  

    Suffice it to say that I personally believe that the book of Job is a
    beautiful poetic work, but is not a historical document of the
    tribulations of a specific, real person.  I have no proof that this is
    the case.  I'm merely expressing my opinions and feelings on the
    matter.  It's what makes sense to me.  However, the fact that other
    authors may have thought that Job was an actual person of history is,
    to me, no proof either.   


    Peace,
    	Eric

Job appears to have been a legendary character.

From "Asimov's Guide to the Bible" by Isaac Asimov:

	  The Book of Job, which follows Esther, is a philosophical drama
	dealing with the problem of good and evil.  It is so little
	concerned with secular history that the question of whether it
	describes events that really happened does not really arise.  Its
	religious and ethical message would be the same even if it is the
	fiction that it appears to be.

	  No one can say exactly when the book might have been written.
	Most scholars seem to conclude that the book as we now have it is
	post-Exilic, and was composed sometime during the Persian period.
	It begins:

		  Job 1:1. There was a man ... whose name was Job ...

	  No genealogy is given for Job, and no connection with Biblical
	history is attempted.  Perhaps none was needed at the time of
	writing, for Job seems to have been the hero of a well-known
	legend; a legend describing a good man of superhuman patience who
	bore up under great misfortune without ever losing his faith in
	God.

	  The original legend must have been ancient (there is even a form
	of it existing in Babylonian literature) and the writer of the
	Biblical Book of Job includes it as a prose introduction and a
	prose ending to the book.  In between that beginning and ending,
	however, he inserts his own deep poetic probing of the
	relationship between God and man, allowing it to be carried like
	rich cargo within the simple and sturdy vessel of the well-known
	Job legend.

	  There is one Biblical reference that seems to deal with the
	original Job legend.  This is to be found within the writings of
	the prophet Ezekiel, who lived during the Exile and therefore,
	very likely, before the Book of Job was written.  When Ezekiel
	quotes God's warning that He will destroy idolators, it is
	specified that evildoers will not escape because of the merits of
	the pious among them.

		  Ezekiel 14:3. ... when the land sinneth against me ...
		then will I cut off man and beast from it:
		  Ezekiel 14:4. Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and
		Job were in it, they should deliver but their own souls.

				-- Bob

Here's what Isaac Asimov ("Asimov's Guide to the Bible") says about the
mention of Satan in the Book of Job:

	  With Job introduced, the scene switches to heaven:

		  Job 1:6. ... there was a day when the sons of God came
		to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also
		among them.

	  This mention of Satan, whose name is not to be found in any of
	the books based on pre-Exilic records, is one of the reasons for
	supposing the books to be post-Exilic.

	  The Persian influence is shown in the picture of God as the head
	of a numerous court of assisting spirits.  The difference from the
	Persian view rests in the fact that Satan is not the coequal head
	of a band of evil spirits but is merely a single spirit, as much
	subject to God as are the others.  Satan has, apparently, the
	important and useful role of testing human beings to see whether
	their faith in God is staunch, or merely superficial.  In this
	role, he acts only with God's permission and only as far as God
	permits.

				-- Bob

    .82
    
    What I've learned of Job confirms what you've said.  When the
    oral tradition is taken into consideration, Job just might be
    the oldest story in the Old Testament.
    
    Richard
    

    I have heard it said that the book of Job was written by Moses scribes
    and is actually the oldest written book in the Bible.  Even if the book
    is post exilic, I do believe the setting of the book takes place long
    before the exile.  One of the indications was the way wealth was
    measured, namely, by livestock.  This was the way wealth was measured
    in the days of and before Abraham.
    
    Eric - My dialogue on this is pretty neutral as yours is.  I am
    inclined to believe Job was a real person based on Ezekiel and James
    referring to him with other Old Testament faithful.  Evidence of his
    existence is sparce and would require alot of digging into historical
    information.
    
    You're opinion could very well be accurate.  It's one of many questions
    where my answer is, "We'll ask God when we get there!"
    
    -Jack