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?

Good thread! My contribution:

Job is a folk-story that goes back probably millennia. The version in the Bible was probably written to refute the belief that God is controllable by huamns. (Could expand on this greatly.) The satan is not the devil - it is 'the opponent' in the 'heavenly council' (God is portrayed as a kind of Prime Minister of a kind of heavenly government, and 'the opponent' is portrayed, as...well, the opposition.) Later developments about the idea of te devil had not yet taken shape at this point, so it's anachronistic to read 'the satan' as a devil with horns and a tail.

But the main point from my POV is that the version of Job we have in the Bible is a re-write of a very old folk story, and when it was written in this form, many people believed that if they believed, prayed, gave to the poor etc then God would have to bless them. This idea still exists today - it's called 'the prosperity Gospel' nowadays. So the story of Job is to say that no, God is not controllable by humans. Loads more I could say about this in its hitorical context - it's the most fascinating book and the most beautiful Hebrew in the Bible IMO.

interesting, but aren't all the stories in Bible/ Quran/ Torah old folk stories? like they are not new to the people of that age, but were mostly around before?

From a religious pov if you say it is a real story then obviously it would of been handed down by word of mouth through the generations, as things generally were in those days.

In Islam there are things called Israeliats (sp?) which are folk tales, we say if they are confirmed by Quran they are true, and if they are not they may be true or false, but they are the stories of Arabia, history and previous wars and kings and holy men etc.

No, not really, Nailac. There's poetry, historiography, legal writings, novella, to name a few genres in the Bible....all sorts of writings really.

but i mean werent they all around before?

It is an obligation. (re prayer) brrr that leaves me cold. I wouldn't feel 'obliged' to talk to my daughter; I specifically don't warm to being 'obligated' to talk to God.

erm do I expect God to change things physically? I've wracked my brains to think of the times I have asked God to change things physically. I'm not thinking physically tbh, more thinking I'm handing something over to the expert, for him to do what he does in the way he does it. I don't tend to aim for 'miracles' as I am more comfortable with God being workaday, ordinary; though there are, of course, certainly times when a miracle is required and longed for, sometimes desperately. I may hold out for 'miracles' within eg relationships, when things are going drastically wrong and there seems to be no hope. This, though, is the flavour of the relationship I have with God ie personal. Everyone's relationship with God is different I guess (though there will be similarities of course).

However, I became a christian as a result of seeing a miracle (a physical miracle which couldn't be explained) so perhaps I've lost sight of the miracle side of God. Maybe I'm being cowardly, playing safe, because it throws up huge issues along the lines of the unbearable pain of hope.

My ds had a dramatic illness when he was little. At the time I was a 'Christian' but I never did pray about my ds being ill. In hindsight I knew it was illogical. If I had prayed and ds recovered it would mean that those kids who didn't recover, or who went on to get worse, had been overlooked/ignored. And at the time I wasn't ready for that sort of self honesty.

I didn't word that very well. I don't tend to hold out for physical miracles but 'invisible' miracles, if you like eg healing relationships, comfort for the suffering etc. I pray eg that someone's bereavement will be steady - or as steady as it can be! - and not go wild (as bereavement can be a potentially freaky time). I focus more on the 'love' side of things I think?

though reading through my post I think I may have become a bit tame, bland and cosy in my relationship with God. I also ommitted the unbearable pain of disappointment , which is far more likely to be holding me back (not to mention looking like a complete nut). There was a guy around at the beginning of the last century called Smith Wigglesworth who prayed for and saw endless miracles - physical miracles - in his life and ministry (his wife's too). There is no question that these physical miracles took place as there are myriad accounts that attest to them over a long period of time. There is also a place in Wales called Ffald-y-Brenin where some astounding things are currently happening - physical miracles, many 'signs and wonders' - and have been for over 20 years.

springy are there no obligations in your religion? things you must do?

and yes another obligation we have is to our children,
and to our parents, and family and neighbours, and to the poor.

I'm okay with the idea of religious obligation. :) There's a line in our Anglican liturgy that says that worship is 'our duty and our joy.' I like that!

I think 'obligation' is a term which doesn't tend to be used in Christianity in the same way it is in Islam.

springy there is no verifiable evidence of miracles relating to Wigglesworth or any other evangelist for that matter. If there had been do you not think there would be entire libraries dedicated to such incredible irrefutable phenomenon.

I think the 'obligation' to neighbours, the poor etc is there in the NT but stated implicitly 'love god and love thy neighbour as thyself' ... 'I was poor, I was naked, were you there' etc A lot of Christians do try to fulfil these 'obligations' - but there are some who seem to get caught up in rather shallow self-serving worship that makes them feel good without being the slightest use to anyone else. ( I probably did some of that myself in my misspent CU youth).

Grimma, I think that's why Jesus lambasted the Pharisees so much - just that kind of attitude. :) I think that the word 'obligation' is used more in Catholic Christianity, like 'holy days of obligation.' less so in Protestantism.

But that 'obligation' is just community to non religious people. It's a sense of putting in and taking out. How come many non Christians feel that too?

Because - like much of what's good in various religions - its a widespread human ethic.

the only obligations I can think of are disciplines that have a function - obligations for the sake of them are bewildering to me, an absurd waste of time and effort. So, I have an 'obligation' to forgive, it is a discipline - but only because it makes total sense, as the fallout from unforgiveness is too horrible to contemplate and I don't want it in my life (I'm not suggesting forgiveness is easy, it's a discipline - you don't have to feel it, or (horror) make yourself feel it. YOu don't have to do that to yourself). Obligation could be summed up that I am 'obliged' to live healthily but it's my choice. I am not obliged to do anything at all but I can choose to do things that work and are healthy.

though I am obliged to follow the (judicial) law, whether I feel like it or not, or whether I think it makes sense. but I am choosing to follow the law so I don't get into trouble - I could choose otherwise.

HolofernesesHead - that's why he blasted some pharisees about it along with some sadducees. A pharisee was only someone who believed the oral Torah and Rabbinical is as binding as the written Tanach, the forerunners of modern Orthodox Judaism. A Sadducee being someone who did not and became the forerunners of the Karaites (and many believe the early Christian sects as it fits with giving up of the oral Torah traditions though some think it belonged mroe to the radical groups of the time period). Some people in any group will be posturing, but there were nothing about their beliefs that made them exceptionally so.

worldgonecrazy - I'm a bit confused; are you quoting me from the perspective of me being one of those 'breeds of Christian'?

I'm not. I'm actually not a very good Christian because I struggle with much of the Bible, and I don't think it's because Satan put the doubts there to tempt me. I think it's because it was written in an age when a) people didn't understand much b) mostly by men c) in a predominantly male centric society.

I believe in evolution. I am pro-homosexuality. I don't believe all those mental rules of the OT should be followed religiously (no pun intended). I have most trouble in this day and age with speaking in tongues and miracle working. I think miracles are possible, but I think it likely that when it is related to bodies and things, there is probably a physiological reason for it that we currently fail to understand. I know Christians that have seen people 'speaking in tongues' but I still think its dead easy to make up some weird language and be doing nothing profound. I always come back to interpreters... were any of them able to do it from birth with no coaching? In the Bible those guys were talking in each others' languages. Not just in some random language, yet to be discovered.

Ultimately, I do believe in God & the Trinity, and much of the Bible. Just not all.

Thanks GoodPharisee :) are you really a good Pharisee? Yes, I should have prefaced my post by saying 'In the Gospels...' Have you heard that some historical Jesus scholars think that Jesus may have been a Pharisee himself? All very interesting...

springyhope Sat 06-Oct-12 01:02:46
the only obligations I can think of are disciplines that have a function

ritual prayer has a function, to bring us closer to God, to stop what we are doing and remember Him in all phases of the day, to remember his mioght and enormoty.

headinhands Fri 05-Oct-12 22:08:01
But that 'obligation' is just community to non religious people. It's a sense of putting in and taking out. How come many non Christians feel that too?

its about intentions, non religious people obviously do that to, but when they do it, it MAY not be a form of worship as their intention is to make themselves feel better, or something instead of the intention being to please God.

Similarly a religious person may do an act and it has no benefit to them as the intention is not to please God.

pharisee i am baffled

Eugenes what are the general issues you have with the teachings of Christianity?