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?

We don't believe that Jesus was swopped at the cross by someone who looked like him because God couldn't bear for his son to go through the agony of the cross. The whole point was that he was willingly slaughtered, the perfect lamb; doing away, once and for all, with the ritual (ongoing) sacrifice of 'perfect lambs' to atone for sin. God died for us, a final and conclusive act to bridge the gap between us and God.

erm there was nobody on the cross with Jesus. Do you mean the two either side? There were 3 altogether.

well, I say 'either side' but I expect that was an artist's device that caught on iyswim.

What was the miracle performed for Jesus you mention crescent?

we believe that God raised Jesus peace be upon him up and someone else was crucified in his place.

Also we believe Jesus pbuh will return.

I dont get it, how does it bridge the gap?

Is there no concept in your religion of holy war, or fighting back someone who is hurting you?

What does he dies for our sins mean?

what do christians believe about the man who was on the cross with Jesus? does he feature in the christian story?
If you mean the two criminals crucified at the same time, see Luke23:39 and following '

The Islamic tradition concerning the crucifixion is utterly at odds with christianity - its really rather clever. While still honouring Jesus it totally refutes the core belief of christianity - that the sins of man could only be forgiven by the sacrifice of the Son of God.

I dont get it, how does it bridge the gap?

Its an odd thing - if you're brought up as a Christian it seems to make sense. It doesn't really - if there was a gap between a God and his people, why was that the only thing that will do?

Is there no concept in your religion of holy war, or fighting back someone who is hurting you?
Its not my religion any more, but no, not really. A key teaching of Jesus is in [[http://bible.cc/matthew/5-38.htm 5:38] and following 'turn the other cheek'...'Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you' . So quite how 'christians' down the ages have justified the Crusades etc is somewhat baffling. Very few apart from Quakers have been pacifists.

What does he dies for our sins mean?
Another of those things that doesn't make any sense viewed from the 'outside' of the faith. Someone who still believes had better try to explain that one.

so do Christians believe that the laws of Jesus over write the laws in the previous books, ie an eye for an eye? and if so why do they include these books as part of their holy book?

nailak,yes.
For me the bible is essentially in 3 parts. The Old Testament,which has God,the New Testament,which includes Jesus,and the end times.
To understand,and believe,you really need all of it.
Stuff in the New Testament is predicted in the Old Testament.

Sorry, I don't get it, to understand the gospel, you need the psalms etc?

but the old testament has stuff which is contrary to the new testament?

but you are not supposed to ignore it as you cant understand the new testament without it?

Christians believe the OT to be 'divinely inspired' - but just to complicate matters, different sects accept different books - see wiki for details.

I think the applicable phrase is 'continuing revelation' - the OT is the history and scriptures pertaining to the 'old covenant' between God and his chosen people; the NT is the 'New covenant' enabled by Christ. And then for Mormons there's still more.

No Muslims believe the same thing, The Torat was sent to Musa (Moses), the Zabur was sent to Dawood (David), the Injil was sent to Isa (Jesus) peace be upon them all, and the Quran was revealed to Muhammad sas.

Each prophet had their own shariah (laws) which were for those people at that time, but the laws in the Quran were for all people for the rest of time.

However the difference is, we don't include the previous scriptures in our holy book, although it is a tenement of faith to believe in them. We believe that the scriptures have been corrupted and what is confirmed to be true by Quran and Hadith is true, what is confirmed to be false is false, and the rest we cannot be sure.

As I have mentioned before, the stories of the Jews, or Israleyats, are often used in explanations of Quran and hadith.

Many christians do make a large distinction between the NT and OT - perhaps its unfortunate that the OT is included as 'scripture' rather than as supplementary material since there are fundamentalists who think they need to believe the whole lot hence creationism and treatment of homosexuals etc.

(I was also interested in the wiki to see Luther wanted Revelation out of the canon -some peoples interpretation of that can cause a deal of trouble. )

It's late so I hope I make sense here. The gap needs to be bridged because we can never make ourselves right with God. It's impossible, absurd to even try. We are born totally opposed to him, having no desire to know him or serve him, entirely divorced from him. It is by accepting his once-and-for-all sacrifice - when Jesus died on the cross (the perfect lamb; which cancelled out the need for ongoing sacrifice) - that we are accepted and made right with God. We stand before God claiming Jesus' sacrifice. It is not possible to stand as you are because you haven't been cleansed 'by the blood of the lamb'. Doing things to 'buy' your way to a relationship with God is fruitless and absurd. It's not possible to get there without the sacrifice.

so for muslims to say that Jesus was swapped, offered 'paradise' so he didn't have to go through that, is to snatch away the core of the gospel. Jesus willingly died - he could have got out of it, God could have got him out of it - but he knew that was what he was here for, to be the blood sacrifice that cleansed the world of sin.

All of which presupposes you believe in (a) original sin and (b) that you buy into the notion of 'sacrifice' in a rather literal, Bronze-age manner.

Its a good explanation Springy, the fact it probably won't make much sense isn't your fault.

Have you ever read 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe', nailak? Its Deep Magic... but it beats me how it ever made sense to me other than as fiction. An omnipotent God surely didn't have to do it this way.

LOL I did realise I was setting myself up by saying I didn't know if I was going to make much sense!

No matter, it's good to get out there what the christian gospel is actually about - that it isn't about being 'good' because you can never be 'good' enough, even if you wanted to. The idea is that, once Jesus' sacrifice is accepted, personally, there is a transaction - you/we are immediately reconciled with God, the full relationship is opened up and available. That is, an actual relationship, in which his heart/spirit becomes yours, and you fellowship together, a 2-way relationship - which is what he wants and has laboured the point to facilitate. It must be so insulting and frustrating (understatement) to him when people think they can get there by their own efforts, when he has gone to extravagant lengths to facilitate a full and free relationship with him, which is entirely impossible to achieve by our own efforts, even if we're busting a gut.

crescentmoon, in a way that is a good question.
I hadnt realise some people would think like that,but I can see why.

Actually,alarmingly, I do know a few Christians who take that standpoint.
Basically they have become arrogant.
I am actually waiting to see what God does about them,and the situation they have got themselves into.
Hopefully they will say sorry to God. If they dont,I am not sure what will happen. I have seen it happen before,and basically their lives go very much downhill.
And if they do not repent for current sins before they die,they will still go to Hell.

Not sure If I am properly understanding and answering your question.

"It's impossible, absurd to even try. We are born totally opposed to him, having no desire to know him or serve him, entirely divorced from him"

That is the opposite of Islam, in Islam we believe or nature is to worship god, we are born knowing him, and that babies are inherently good, and sinless.

We don't believe in original sin, we believe the sins of the fathers cannot be passed down to the son. Jehovas witnesses explained it to me like a bread tin with a dent in it or something, but I don't get it, if I commit a sin will it be passed down to my kids? if not how come it was passed down to Adam as's kids?

We also dont believe Eve as, was more culpable then Adam as.

amillion the question is why do we have to be good, if Jesus already died for our sins? and if we believe in him and believe that to be true?

In christianity, what prevents anarchy?

faith is not a passive thing in islam, it has to be confirmed and manifested in good deeds and good conduct whether in easy circumstances or difficult circumstances.

the gospel would say that is what is called 'works' ie believing you can build a tower of 'goodness' to get you to God. NOt possible as far as the christian gospel is concerned.

In Christianity, the selfish, the tyrants and the wrongdoers are God's business to sort out. I do struggle with this, of course, because I want to get the bastards and make them pay. Vengeance is mine, he says, and sometimes we are in a position where there is nothing at all we can do about what is going down so, in that instance, it's cut and dried; most of the time it isn't and the impulse to take the lead is strong.

That's not to say we do nothing - on the contrary, we are required to do a great deal. There are boundaries, for instance, which we can keep around ourselves, on a personal level; and also boundaries we can fight for for those who are powerless and can't fight for themselves. There are any number of battles we can fight but it is usually on behalf of other people (thinks about this...). Even then, the result is up to God, he's the one who has the power to tip the balance and get the bastards.

In my own experience of putting everything I can in place without finishing the deed (not my job), I am then left with just God. whom I nag. As it's a relational relationship (can I say that?) there's a lot of to-ing and fro-ing on that.

YOu don't have to be good, nailak. Sorry if it sounds cheesey, but once his spirit links with yours, you start wanting to be; you change (how could you not?). Mind you, 'good' is a bit of a loaded word. I don't want to be good for the sake of it, I want to do what God wants. Which usually comes under the broad category of 'good'. Not soft or wet though, ime.

You need James ch2 for this one - which spells out that christians are supposed to have work and faith - its not an either/or (although there are some 'christians' who seem to forget it):

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, ?Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,? but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, ?You have faith; I have deeds.?

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that?and shudder.

20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, ?Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,?[e] and he was called God?s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

nailak,the thought of Hell keeps most of us on our toes!

And what springyhope and Grimma have said.