What has God actually done wrong ?

[Sculptor1]

Is it true there was a person called Job and that this is an accurate narrative of his life.
Yes or no?
If no, then this myth is not true.

Myths don't need to be true to have value. Oddly, you even quoted me on this, an answer I'd just offered to you, at the end of your post. Look, here it is:

The point of myth is not that it isn't true — some myths are, e.g., 'true' stories — but what can be learned from it. Sometimes, of course, there is nothing to be learned; a story is sometimes just a story, an entertainment. But other stories carry messages, some of them useful, others offer advice (like Aesop's fables, or Christian parables). But this topic is about God, not myth, so I'll leave my comment there.

Myths teach us nothing, but the false credibility of another's opinion.

So Aesop's fables have no educational value? I won't ask you about Jesus' parables, but others have found, over the years, that they have educational value too. Many fairy stories teach social values and morals, even though they are mostly concerned with unicorns. I'm sure there are many other examples.

Are you sure that "myths teach us nothing"?

Aesop is not claiming that the events are true.

[Pattern-chaser]

Aesop is not claiming that the events are true.

So, when you said "myths teach us nothing", you meant that myths can teach us something, even though not everything they mention is 'true'?

[Sculptor1]

Aesop is not claiming that the events are true.

So, when you said "myths teach us nothing", you meant that myths can teach us something, even though not everything they mention is 'true'?

No, I meant fables are not in the same category as myths.

[LuckyR]

There is nothing to be learned from this myth, except to give a true rendering of it.
To do otherwise is to pretend that it is not mythical but true.

THe only thing we can learn from it is that whoever invented the story had an opinon about faith. If you shose to ignore the story because it does not match your picture of faith, then there are plenty more to chose from.

The story of Job may be complete and utter fiction as far as I know, but I can see a meaning in it. I am not particularly interested in why anyone in the twenty-first century has faith in The Bible as God's holy word, and I think of that as a question for sociologists and psychologists. I am interested in The Bible as literature.

Works of literature are sometimes reworked for the stage or film play, or have sequels and prequels added. Fiction is a way we express how the world seems to us and how it may be different.

I guess you are reading The Book of Job for its anthropological/historical source material in particular its "opinion about faith". This is also interesting .

Sadly people attach their personal opinions about a thing and try to give it credibity by selecting and reinterpreting some myth or other as if that brngs credibility to that opinion. Even more sadly there are those that are stupis enough to be taken in by such a strategy to the point where they are willing to put money in a collection plate.
Such are the follies of a weak minded civilisation

Well that is not what I do. I use myths for my own purposes , not how some priest or politician says I ought to use them.

Of course you do. We all use things that aren't real (are myths). Amazon Corp, the EU and the dollar are just as mythical (dependant on human belief for their existance) as gods and their scriptures.

[Pattern-chaser]

Aesop is not claiming that the events are true.

So, when you said "myths teach us nothing", you meant that myths can teach us something, even though not everything they mention is 'true'?

No, I meant fables are not in the same category as myths.

Ah, I think I might finally have worked out what you're getting at. You are concerned that the persuasive and memorable mythical story-form might be used to peddle untruths. As an active atheist, you believe that God does not exist; to you, proclaiming the existence of God is an untruth. And so you object to a 'myth' proclaiming something you consider to be a lie.

You could've said, much more clearly, that you disapprove of myths being used to promote untruths. Then I, and anyone else who takes the trouble to follow this exchange, would've known what you meant.

[Sculptor1]

Aesop is not claiming that the events are true.

So, when you said "myths teach us nothing", you meant that myths can teach us something, even though not everything they mention is 'true'?

No, I meant fables are not in the same category as myths.

Ah, I think I might finally have worked out what you're getting at. You are concerned that the persuasive and memorable mythical story-form might be used to peddle untruths. As an active atheist, you believe that God does not exist; to you, proclaiming the existence of God is an untruth. And so you object to a 'myth' proclaiming something you consider to be a lie.

You could've said, much more clearly, that you disapprove of myths being used to promote untruths.

I did.

Then I, and anyone else who takes the trouble to follow this exchange, would've known what you meant.

See above.

[Sculptor1]

...

A person with some opinion or other, rather than merely and honestly stating it, chooses to select some cock and bull story so has to lend it greater credence. He either selects from a range of existing myths, or invents a new one of his own, such as a fake story or parable.
Briober, or is it Broubert recently lied that she had been denied the use of contraceptives through some legislation, and the happy result was a child. No one believes the story being something made up on the spot.
Trump comes up with the "fact" that during the American War of Independence, the colonial army fought amongst the airports. Such gems might seem absurd but this is the basis of Job and many other "true" or "just-so" stories that we are polluted with as children.

I know this is all true because Socrates said this much to Plato and he agreed. In a debate between a donkey and an elephant the donkey also took the side of Socrates and the elephant was forced to agree that such things are disingenuous.