The Book of Job

[Machadaynu]

I mentioned my thoughts on The Book of Job in the 'Back to Church' thread, and it was suggested that I start a new thread about it. So here it is.

The story of the book of Job is (to quote myself from the other thread):

God is chatting to Satan and mentions how Job is his best follower and would never lose faith. Satan essentially has a bet with God that Job would turn on God if his life wasn't so great. God, for some reason, accepts this deal with the proviso that Satan doesn't kill Job. It's not explained why God is chewing the fat with Satan rather than, say, destroying him completely, what with God being omnipotent and Satan being pure evil.

Anyway, Satan sends all sorts of illness to Job, kills all his animals, destroys his farm and kills his entire family. God, being omniscient, knew this would happen when he took on the bet - he knew Job would suffer, and he knew Job would remain true to him. Quite why he needed to prove this to Satan (pure evil, remember) is something of a mystery.

In the end God gives Job twice as many animals as before, and 10 new children, including 3 daughters that were prettier than the ones God allowed Satan to kill.

Christians see this as a story of how faith is rewarded (even if you're only suffering because God is trying to prove a point to Satan) I see it as a story of how God will use us as he sees fit, is insecure and vain and is apparently either unable, or unwilling, to resist being influenced by Satan.

I contrast God's treatment of Job, his wife and children - all "God's children" used as pawns in a game, and suffering terribly for it - and wonder what we'd make of a human father treating his children in such a way. I expect the MN opinion would be rather damning to say the least. Yet when God does it, it becomes an inspiring story, and God is love, apparently.

Christians, I am told, see the book as a lesson in why the righteous suffer. The answer, it seems, is that their all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent holy father is sometimes prone to abandoning people to the worst excesses of Satan to try and prove some kind of point to God knows who.

Seems odd to me. God does not show love in that story. God shows himself to be deeply unpleasant. Or not God.

What are your views on Job?

I'm with machadaynu the more I learn about Christianity and the God of the Bible, the less I like it or It.

As a Gnostic once told me, Jehovah (the God of the Bible) cannot be All Powerful, All Knowing and All Loving, but only two of those three.

My own particular hope springs from those moments when I meet people who realise, or are in the process of realising, that they can find ways to express their spiritual nature through channels other than Judaic War/thunder Gods.

I give thanks every day that Jehovah is most definitely not my God and never will be.

I reckon amillion reads what mach writes and interprets it in the light of her own beliefs even if that contradicts what mach has stated.

Just as believers do with Job. They start from the assertion that God is Love, and then tie themselves in knots trying to make this story fit their belief. I doubt that anyone who doesn't have that preconception could read Job and come to the conclusion that there is a loving God. Believers typically don't read their scriptures as a historian or as a scientist would - this is why their explanations don't satisfy unbelievers.

I feel compelled to write the following this morning.
So here goes.
Math 7 "Enter through the narrow gate;for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction,and there are many who take it.For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life,and there are few who find it".

Luke 13 "Someone asked him 'Lord,will only a few be saved?' He said to them "Strive to enter through the narrow door,for many,I tell you,will try to enter and not be able.When once the owner has got up and shut the door,and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door,saying,"Lord,open to us",then in reply he will say to you,"I do not know where you come from." Then you will begin to say, "We ate and drank with you and you taught in our streets." But he will say ,"I do not know where you come from;go away from me,all you evildoers!". There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God,and you yourselves thrown out. Then people will come from east and west,from north and south, and will eat in the kingdom of God. Indeed some are last who will be first,and some are first who will be last'.

amillionyears when I read that, all I see is some very clever propoganda explaining why people should remain poor and happy and downtrodden, rather than try and do anything to improve themselves. It's the beginning of the contrast between the Judaic view of wealth (i.e. a good thing which shows God's blessing) and the Christian view of wealth (i.e. give everything you have to the church and trust them to use it to help others rather than spending it on Rollers for the preachers or fancy buildings).

I do find it a bit strange that a thread about how anyone can read Job and think 'this God sounds lovely' - a question that hasn't been answered in a way that makes sense to someone who doesn't read it assuming God to be lovely - has turned into an attempt not to explain, but to convert the questioner.

amillionyears, I appreciate the thoughts, but what you seem to be saying is that because I am interested in how people can read Job and not be horrified, I must want to be able to read Job and not be horrified and therefore I must want to 'find' God. There are a few too many assumptions in there really.

And I still can't see any reason for God to allow the devil to torture Job and murder his family, or how doing so can be thought of as loving.

OK, I'm having a bit f a bad spell and I'm not long out of bed, so this might not make much sense.

The Book of Job is not supposed to show that "GOd is Love". In fact, that is a particularly Christian representation of God and not really all that relevant to the story. In early Judaism, God did indeed love his people and was seen as benevolent towards them but he was most definitely a God of judgement, especially to those who displeased him/broke his commandments/didn't acknowledge him.

The view of suffering goes something like this, and forgive me if it's a bit incoherent. Suffering allows us to grow in faith and to grow closer to God. Divine Providence ensures that there is a reason for everything and that everything works towards the fulfilment of God's ultimate purpose for the Earth and its inhabitants. The idea would be that God brought everything into the world for a specific purpose and that he provides the environment to make that purpose happen. We have to take the long view, see past the present hardship to the bigger picture. It is a matter of trust in God that he has a purpose for what is happening. Remember the scriptures say that God created both good and bad and that one cannot exist without the other. Also that Satan in an adversary rather than an embodiment of evil.

What the Book fo Job is supposed to do is show all of this. It shows that yes, we suffer, even if we are "righteous". it shows that bad things happen to good people. it shows that, in the face of great suffering, our faith is severely tested. But it also shows that we have to take the long view and that, ultimately, things will work out according to God's plan, see the end of the book where God gives Job a lecture about how He created everything etc. and knows where things came from and where they are headed.

There is also much to learn about the nature of redemption and forgiveness from the Book of Job. Job's good fortune isn't restored, for instance, until he prays for his advisers - Job acts as a conduit for these people to come into God's good graces, just like the people of Israel were the conduit by which God was made manifest to the gentiles and the door by which they could access Him. God's forgiveness is available to those who show their repentance in an acceptable way and have an acceptable intermediary (Advisers should sacrifice and Job should pray for them.)

In some ways, Job looks towards the coming of Christ.

I agree with much of what stressedHEmum has written.
I dont think there is much more that I can say about this,that I have not already said.
Very best wishes for the future,Machadaynu.

I don't think that there is much more that I can say, either, million. I also don't really think that there is a great deal of point in saying much more, tbh.

'God is love' may be a "peculiarly Christian representation of God" - but it is nonetheless what Christians believe.

The bible defines love in 1 Corinthians 13 (not jealous, always endures, patient, keeps no record of wrongs etc) and says God loves us many times, for example in Psalm 86:15 But you, O Lord, are a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.

People who are Christian have to reconcile their God being described as loving, and also being the God who drowned living thing, allowed Job to be tortured, and kills millions. Or they have to start saying that some bits of the bible aren't true, and they decide which bits are not true by judging God's actions according to their own morals.

Job shows we suffer - we know that though, just look around. What it says is that sometimes people suffer because God chooses for them to suffer to prove a point that didn't need proving.

All this about 'restoring Job' is ridiculous. Who here would be happy for their children to be killed so God could prove some sort of weird point because they'd get other kids later?

I say again, the Book of Job is an allegory making points about faith, doubt, suffering, Divine Providence and redemption.

No-one would be happy to lose their children in any kind of circumstances, but it is not a true story, it's an allegorical, didactic poem that uses extremes to make its point.

Christians believe in a loving God, yes, but they also believe in a God who judges - see the apostles creed for one. Also the OT God is very different from the God of the NT because the focus of Judaism is different from that of Christianity. Stories like that of the Flood show us God's judgement on those who oppose/displease him. Stories like that of Abraham bargaining with Him over the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, show us something of his mercy. The bible is full of references to God's judgement but also to the fact that He is slow to anger and that He allows plenty time for people to realise the error of their ways before He acts.

I think that you are determined to view the Book of Job, amongst other things, literally and to interpret it in that light. That's why there is not much else that I have to say on the subject. There are a lot of very good commentaries that can explain the allegory and the theology of Job much better than I ever could, perhaps you might like to read some of those.

So do you think a lot of the OT is allegory? Seems weird to say it's GOd doing things if it's an allegory. Jesus' method of talking about farmers and so on was much less confusing. Why would you want your Holy Book to confuse people if you were God?

I thought it was the same God throughout - are you saying ("the OT God is very different from the God of the NT") that God has changed personality (what was wrong with the old one, and why did he behave like that if it was wrong?) or that the old God died and we have a new one now?

The story of the Flood shows us that God makes mistakes, doesn't it? God regretted doing it, and the rainbow is his aide memoir not to do it again.

God isn't always slow to anger - he's sent bears to maul the children mocking Elishah for being bald within minutes, for example.

And why, why, why, would an omnipotent, omniscient being 'bargain' with a mere mortal? Surely he knows what he wants to do, and how best to do it?

The Book of Job seems to be written as something that is supposed to be taken as literal, that is why I take it as literal. Otherwise it's just a story about God behaving in a way he'd never actually behave, and I'm not sure there is much to be learned from that?

The Book of Job isn't about the way God behaves at all, as I said above, it's about the struggle of the human condition and the difficulties of faith. But I don't know how to make that any clearer.

The God of the OT is presented differently to the God of the NT, not because He actually is much different, but because the focus of Judaism and Christianity is different. The focus of Christianity is love, redemption, how to live a life that pleases God, Jesus as the fulfilment of the Law so that Christians are, essentially, freed from the burden of all the hundreds of little laws, by the over arching principles of the Law as a whole. Judaism is much more legalistic and concerned with the minutiae and ritual of the Law and with the consequences of not keeping it. The OT is also, predominately a book about the relationship between God and his chosen people, which was turbulent to say the least.

The example that you give re Elisha does show God acting swiftly, but it is against individuals rather than whole nations/groups of people, as are the other examples that I can think of off hand of God enacting instant punishment. When David speaks of God being slow to anger, he is talking about it taking quite a lot to stir up God's wrath.

God was not bargaining with Abraham, Abraham was bargaining with God at God's invitation. This tells us as much about Abraham's compassion as anything else. GOd had already decided what he would do, but he allowed Abraham to act as an intercessor.

The flood doesn't show that God makes mistakes, it shows what happens when we take free will too far. Yes, God regretted having made people because most of them had gone astray, but he allowed for a fresh start in Noah and his family. The rainbow is a reminder for us not for Him.

I'm sorry, I can't do this any more. My ME is not great at the moment, my brain is scrambled and my typing is going to pot. I can't formulate any kind of decent sentence just now, so forgive me if I just point you again to more learned people than I. There are many good commentaries and theology books which could try to answer your questions in a much more coherent manner than most of us on here.

Finally, I don't actually think that any answer will satisfy you because you are actively looking for holes or contradictions and deliberately misinterpreting much of what people are saying to you.

"Finally, I don't actually think that any answer will satisfy you because you are actively looking for holes or contradictions"

So shame on you Machadaynu for asking the wrong questions. You should be asking the right questions, like "So does Jesus really want me for a rainbow?" or "Just how much does God love me?"

HTH!

Genesis 9 makes it quite clear that the rainbow is created by God to remind him of his promise not to drown us all again: it's to remind him, not us.

"And God said, ?This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.?

If God has regrets, does that not imply he has done things he now wishes he hadn't done - or, in other words, made a mistake?

Snorbs that was most definitely not what I was saying and it's incredibly patronising of you to suggest that it was. There are no wrong questions.

Mach, sorry, you'll have to wait till I'm feeling a bit better before I can come back to you. I'm about to fall over. However just because GOd says that He will remember stuff when the rainbow is there, doesn't mean that he forgets it at other times. The rainbow is a sign of that particular covenant, that's all.

Finally, I don't actually think that any answer will satisfy you because you are actively looking for holes or contradictions

Its what anyone versed in the scientific method does. But, the bible isn't a scientific document, so its not entirely fair to treat it as such. Of course there are some people - Creationists, fundamentalists - who think it is an accurate textbook; sensible people like stressed don't.

Do you think the bible should be able to stand up to scrutiny, Grimma?

Do you think the bible should be able to stand up to scrutiny, Grimma?

well, I don't think it does... personally there's no 'should' about it because I don't base my life on it.

Believers subject it to different levels of scrutiny... and of course the sad thing is that the extreme fervent 'bible-believing' christians really don't do much impartial examination. More rational believers understand that its a man-made (though some would say divinely inspired) book - starting with myths, working through semi-historical books etc. They won't read Job as something that actually happened (I mean, who witnessed God and Satan talking?). But still, their examination tends to be through the lens or filter of faith.

Can I ask those people who perceive certain stories in the Bible to be allegorical, rather than actual truth, how you determine which parts are allegory and which have to be accepted at face value? As in the example discussed above, it seems that many people who identify as Christian consider the book of Job to be allegorical, even though it does not state that it is. What is the basis on which you decide it is an allegory if it is not stated to be by the Bible?

Are there certain parts of the Bible that have to be accepted as truth, or is it down to each individual to decide which parts are which? Do you believe that you have to believe certain aspects to be true in order to accrue come sort of benefit or favour in this life or next, or in order to lead a worthy and moral life?

In particular, if someone leads their life along the lines of the moral code set out in the New Testament, but chooses to see the concept of God as a Devine Being as nothing more than an allegory, are they doing anything 'wrong'? Do you believe that they are missing any point of understanding?

I haven't read the bookof Job or much of this thread (good start ). However, I'd like to think that God doesn't 'need' to do this for his own ends and that he probably tests people because human are weak.

It's like the taunting on the cross 'If you are the Son of God, save yourself!'. Really, Jesus might liked to have said 'Thanks, but I'm busy dying to atone for everyone else's sins. Now's not a great time to be saving myself, but if it weren't for that, I'd be on it.'

I expect Satan planting ideas of God's crapness in the minds of human beings and them taunting him about it either directly, or by being sinful, happens a lot. Therefore I see it as necessary that occasionally God allows one of his faithful to have a hard time of it, before setting it all to rights in order to demonstrate to the unbelievers that he is actually all powerful and better than Satan.

Who the fuck are we to question God anyway? Just don't do it! Unless you are an atheist.

Who the fuck are we to question God anyway? Just don't do it!
If you believe in God, don't you believe that he made you with an inquiring, questioning mind?

Yes... but preferably not of Him. Of course he forgave Thomas, but I just don't think people should make a habit of questioning why God made XYZ happen if they believe. I think that's what faith is about.

How do you avoid yourself questioning why things happen?

Is it not a rather strange moral stance to take to say that accepting that some things are the way they are 'just because' and not questioning them with any depth, is preferable to thinking carefully and deeply about why things might be? That one follows a higher moral code by accepting lessons that are actually not subject to reason, than one does by using one's own conscience and powers of reasoning to reach one's own moral view? That it is better to blindly accept some things that we cannot understand, than it is to question and rationalise? Does it not make you wonder what sort of a being demands this?