There are, in fact, so many things wrong with this book that I was tempted to write a Left Behind-style post about it, pulling apart all of the awful things it completely took for granted about love, sex and relationships. It sounds like something I'd be interested in doing...except that I'm not sure if I'd be able to, given that I don't really have an internal idea of `gender` myself, and I really don't understand how people have gender identity, so the review would probably mostly be me going `Whaaaaaaaa?`. (Not saying that identifying as a gender or both genders is bad, just that I can't grok it)

@syfr: I don't remember ever asking God to leave me alone (in fact there where some times when I tried to find him and he still did so). If I end up in the afterlife and he says that, I'm going to ask where he'd been beforehand.

I could probably do something about being asexual or agendered, though it is probably more suited to a comment thread discussion since I find it difficult to remember all I want to say without people giving me questions to answer. I'd be interested in Deird's Christian book-store post as well, as well as otherkin 101.

@DS: It's a mix of things. Some people have problems accessing patheos, while others find the widespread treatment of some groups (atheists and homosexuals are two major ones) on the site replusive and wish to have as little contact with it as possible.

"If we went in with the assumption that this god is correct that humans cannot possibly comprehend the reasoning behind it all, it seems like an acceptable second step to leap to 'and we don't even have words that anyone could possibly use to express these concepts, so even if God tried to beam his reasons wordlessly right into Job's brain, any attempt by Job to explain them to anyone else would have ended with someone trying to draw a geometric representation of moral integrity'." True. I guess this ultimately comes down to `Do you trust God?`. If read by someone who does not trust God, it sounds like God is making an appeal to his own power while refusing to give any reason, where as if you trust that God does have a good reason, then it sounds more the scenerio you describe. Although I do agree with Brokenbell, he was still a jerk about it.

@ Ross: I'd be able to take that better if God actually tried to explain his reasons. If Job then didn't understand, then yes, perhaps God would have had the right to say `We work on different levels, so you're not going to understand`. He didn't. It doesn't help that God doesn't actually make any attempt to explain the reason at all, meaning that the `God did it for a stupid reason and makes an appeal to power when called on it` reading is still valid.

My response is similar to yours in the first part, but completely different for the second part. I feel awe, yes, and wonder, and most of all sadness, at moments like that, where I see suffering stretched out in plain detail like that, with misery and small (but oh so important) acts of heroism shown clearly to me. However, rather than feel awe and wonder towards God, I feel it towards the people involved in the situation. It is their suffering, their misery, their acts of heroism that are the focus of my emotions, after all. The holocaust was caused by humans, it was suffered in by humans, it was survived by humans, it was ended by humans. Now, I'm sure that you will say (and rightfully so) that you do also feel this way to the humans involved in the event, or any event that includes suffering, but my point is that I'm not entirely sure where God is in it. It is not that I can't imagine finding God in the suffering, but rather that I can't work out where God comes into any of this.

One thing has been confusing me for a while. How are the names of the baptised after death recorded by the LDS church? Are they listed as baptised, or are they listed as having been offered a baptism? The two situations are quite different, since in the first you are writing it as you know the person has personally accepted the baptism, where as the other actually fits with the idea that you are not forcing the person to accept the baptism.

Heart, are you the Heart with the pink icon who's been posting here...maybe not "regularly" exactly, but significantly often? Some of the things you've said sound like you're a different person, and that could get confusing having two Hearts I don't think so. I think most of my posts have had either blue or green icons. I've logged into my typepad account now, so that should be easier to tell apart (Or I could just be forgetting things...but I don't really post that much, so...)