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?

Holo - yes. Unfortunately, there are many Christians who don't want to make sense of the Bible - either literalists (who thereby can make no sense of the real world) or 'cherry pickers' who ignore the parts which don't fit.

Before I go out - no, HIh, I was using evolution as an apt analogy. IMO God gives us many different ways to understand and relate to the divine.

Christianity is not brain-programming! We are allowed (encouraged even) to think. Thank God! I'd be out of here if that weren't the case.

I think you've misinterpreted what I was driving at. Imagine a person from a culture that had never heard of Jesus or Mohammad etc standing in a room with the bible and the koran. How would they determine if there was any supernatural element to either texts.

I think that it is a shame that this thread has disintegrated a bit into attacking the posters' beliefs in a personal way - saying that it is 'sad' that someone no longer considers themselves to be a Christian, telling another that it is only a matter of time before they 'find' Christianity, and telling another that they must be 'angry'. It smacks of the arrogance of religious practice which (sometimes but not always) occurs when someone is convinced that they have the 'right answers'.

I don't think that I got a real response to my earlier point about what Christians actually believe to be the 'benefit' to them of their beliefs, as I do not see that there would be any additional benefit to me to be a Christian, that I do not have in my life already - let me see if I can explain:

I have never considered myself to be a Christian. My parents are atheist/agnostic, and apart from a period of about two weeks when I was about 7/8 years old and decided that I would pray to god each night, I have never engaged in any religious practice (I have to say that the praying phase lasted about as long as the rotation of which cuddly toy would be my favourite to take to bed with me that week, and was a choice that was taken about as seriously). I suppose I drifted along not giving the matter much thought, but with a few doubts along the lines of being mindful of all the thousands of people who do have a belief in god, so maybe there could be something in it?

This came to a head a few years ago, when I was asked by a friend to be Godmother to her son. I realised that it would be hypocritical of me to go through a religious ritual that I consider to be meaningless, but it challenged me to think carefully about why I have no belief in the existence of a god a defined by the Abrahamic religions. I have done quite a bit of reading on the matter, and thought and reasoned things to myself (hence my interest in threads such as this). What I found interesting was that when I was finally able to say that I have no doubts that there is no god as defined by the Abrahamic religions, I felt a sense of calmness, peace and joy - which is probably just what other people feel when they go the other way and 'find God'. The only difference to me is that this feeling is explained by the fact that I have resolved some internal conflicts, and not because I have made a connection with a higher power.

Also, I feel that some of this sense of calmness comes from letting go a little of the need for external validation of my beliefs. I have these beliefs because I have worked them through for myself. I am quite open to questioning them and adjusting them if I hear or read something that makes me think I am not quite on the right track - because I have no reason or other source to point to to say "this is why they are right". For me, a challenge to my beliefs is something to be welcomed as an opportunity to develop, not to be fended off or become offended about, because it has the potential to undermine the very core of those beliefs.

One thing that I think that has been very interesting to come out of this thread is the idea that for Christians, their relationship with God is intensely personal - that it depends on each individual's interpretation of the Bible because there is no Christian consensus as to how it should be interpreted. Given that it is not possible to define God without reference to the Bible, it seems to me that (in the nicest way possible) God is all in your head. God only exists through each person's interpretation, and with respect, your interpretation of him existing is no more valid than my interpretation that he does not.

If a belief in God helps you lead a happier, more beneficial and kinder life, then that is a great benefit. But that is where the benefit ends, so don't try to pity or patronise other people who do not believe the same.

Oh - and on the point about giving away all your worldly goods - I do know someone who (almost) practices this. She has a house and other day to day accoutrements, but has lived her life placing her Christian ideas over material matters. She is the sort of person who has given up a share of a business because her business partner wanted it more, and has gone without paying for electricity through the winter so that she can afford to go on a religious pilgrimage. She also lets Christians stay in her B&B for free if they plead poverty. Her decisions not to manage her business affairs have threatened the livelihoods of her family members and mean that her children are faced with not being able to complete their studies in their chosen careers.

The amount of stress that she places on her family who worry about her having enough food to eat or being able to heat her house in cold weather, is not insubstantial. She also is one of those people who find that money or provisions come through just at the last minute to prevent disaster - usually because said family and friends are running round like blue arsed flies to try to sort things out for her.

But hey, she has a great close and personal relationship with God, and is living her life as instructed by the Bible, so it's all good, yes?

And WTF she was thinking sending a 11 year old child a torn and patched shirt for their birthday with a note saying "I have no money to buy you a present so I have sent you a shirt off my back, but if you don't like it, please send it back"? God does move in mysterious ways, does he not?

Thanks thistledew. I tend to 'turn the other cheek to the 'ad hominem' stuff but I'm glad you adressed million*'s posts. It did need to be said and is something we all need to watch out for.

Thistle - your post 10:54:49 resonates with my experience. Though I arrived at it from a different starting point - brought up in a lovely Christian family and church, and being a believer - I had that sort of calmness when I finally came to the conclusion that there was no god - other than what we may make inside our heads.

Of course, to a believer they perceive more 'benefits'. Eternal life. A 'relationship' which they value.

' For me, a challenge to my beliefs is something to be welcomed as an opportunity to develop, not to be fended off or become offended about, because it has the potential to undermine the very core of those beliefs. ' -Yes. That's exactly how I see it too from the 'other side.' :) I really value talking with people like you on these threads and thinking my faith through. Like Holo, I'd be out of here if I did not firmly believe my faith is reasonable and that I am supposed to use my brain.

Indeed wtf at the t shirt to the child I do not believe we should practise our faith to the detriment of our family - to not heat our house in the winter, for example, would make my ds very poorly (not to mention me) and this would hardly be in the spirit of how I believe Jesus would want me to live. People are human, and get it wrong. Spectacularly, sometimes.

Benefits? It's interesting reading of experiences like yours and Grimma's, they remind me of a phase I went through myself when I was studying theology at university. I decided none of it was real (had been brought up for a good proportion of my childhood in the Christian faith, although parents very new to it - atheist/agnostic background) and that I should give it up and live like there is no God.

I was utterly miserable. Something nagged away at me. I never felt the sense of peace you describe, just misery. You may like to believe this was guilt at leaving a strong childhood faith; I firmly believe that it was because I was leaving behind something that made sense of everything, gave me purpose and hope and changed my outlook on relationships, on people, on so, so much. When I went through this phase I became fairly selfish and found that my friendships suffered, rather than blossomed. It was an odd time.

I came back to fully believing, funnily enough, through further theological study, as well as through encounters with God and various other stuff. The sense of peace which came over me was incredible.

Just interesting, to read how you also experienced this by deciding to put aside faith.

I do not think being a Christian has fringe benefits such as health and wealth, that is bollocks spewed by 20th c televangelists and their ilk. I do think that it gives an amazing purpose, adventure and hope to life. A deep down satisfaction, a 'peace beyond understanding.' I find this again and again. I love it.

Sorry for long post.

I don't see religion or a belief in god as bringing purpose, adventure and hope to life - for many people religion brings anger, uncertainty and unhappiness, if they believe their beliefs to be threatened, or if they don't find themselves able to live in the way they are told to live. Also, I and many others with who do not practice religion have purpose, adventure and hope in my life in abundance. I feel that religion provides people with a way to martial their thoughts and feelings about the way in which they should best live their lives, but to actually feel 'purpose, adventure and hope' is something that comes from within, and is not a gift provided by religion or a divine being.

I didnt realise to pity was to patronise.
I thought it was showing compassion.

mad you say I do not believe we should practice our faith to the detriment of our family. Many NT texts suggest otherwise particularly Matthew 10 but others too. Thankfully you have used your reasoning to see that it's best to not take Jesus' words at face value and actually determine he meant something else, something that fits in with your morals and ideals when it comes to your life. And I'm very glad you have!

In Buddhism, pity and compassion are seen as two very separate things, and that pity can in fact be the opposite of compassion. True compassion is the ability to stand next to a person and understand what they are feeling. This does not mean that you should feel their suffering too, as this in fact adds to the totality of suffering and is a negative thing, but you should feel moved to alleviate their suffering in any way you can.

Pity is an emotion that exists when you stand outside the other person's experience. When your own assessment of how they must be feeling is more important than their own feelings. It entails imposing your own judgment onto their situation. It is perfectly possible to pity someone who feels no sorrow or suffering themselves. According to Buddhist thought, pity is often akin to arrogance.

Agree with you about compassion.

The online definition of pity is "sympathy and sorrow aroused by the misfortune or suffering of another".

I am not a Buddhist. Are you a Buddhist, in which case I am sorry if I have offended you.

I don't self-define as a Buddhist, as I haven't studied it in enough depth to fully understand all the philosophies it promotes, and I don't practice meditation, which Buddhist teachings promote as being very helpful to develop spiritual and emotional awareness.

However, I do find Buddhist teachings to be a very useful guide to help me understand myself and my place in the world, and to lead a happier, kinder, and more beneficial life.

The good thing about Buddhism is that it doesn't really care if you are a Buddhist or not, or whether you believe or perform xy or z. You can dip into and out of it at will, as the only person you are letting down if you don't use it as a guide to life is yourself. You can also be a Christian, Muslim, Hindu or any other religion and follow the teachings of Buddha. It is just there to help you help yourself.

It also means that people who follow the teachings of Buddhism are spectacularly hard to offend, as it teaches that emotions such as offence are emotions that arise from within us as our own reaction to the outside world. You can say what you want, but it is up to me as to whether or not I feel offended by it.

I have just found a quote by the great philosopher/guru Krishnamurti, which sums up my point about God only existing in the minds of people who believe in him, and not being external:

"The mind is the product of the past, it is the result of yesterday, and can such a mind be open to the unknown? It can only project an image, but that projection is not real; so your God is not God - it is an image of your own making..."

Thistledew - sounds like I'm on the same page as you re Buddhism too. One of the things I like is that (to quote from A Basic Buddhism Guide -can't find the proper quote I wanted... 'the Buddha himself asked his followers to test the teaching rather than accept his word as true. Buddhism depends more on understanding than faith.'

Thistle, I hear what you say. I am also someone who thinks a lot about what I believe, and adjust my perspectives on things over time. That's completely good as far as I'm concerned, it means I'm alive. :)

But does it mean that God isn't real? Does the fact that I'd disagree with my 18 y o self (self-righteous teenage zealot that I was!) mean that the God I believed in then and still do now isn't real? My relationship with my parents has changed too. Does that mean they're not real? My sister relates differently to my parents than I do. Are we both deluded? I'm just trying to follow your logic here.

As for your friend, we'll, I'd be lying if I didn't say I've known a few zealots too (might have been one at some point)

HIH, if I were to make a serious study of a thought system different to my own, I'd read up on its background, languages, internal logic etc. Id bring ny own backgrounds etc to ot tio, of course. No-one is a neutral reader, regardless of religion. Such a person doesn't exist. Much very interesting stuff written on this.
]

Yes holo but what would you think if your parents were telling you they were pleased with you and disgusted with your sister, but telling your sister they were disgusted with you and approved of your sister. Bit of a head thrash no?

So holo that theoretical person in the room with the Koran and the bible. So they've now got history books and stuff so they can read around the texts. How does that person go outside of their intellect and attribute a divine hand in either text. Can you see the point/points I'm making. It seems you're suggesting one needs to be a scholar to find god. Would that not unfairly prevent people of low intelligence or even people without access to further information from finding salvation?

Holo - look at it this way:

I don't know you. I have never met you or your family. For all I know, your parents don't actually exist - they might be dead or you might have been adopted and the people you refer to as your parents are not your biological ones (not to disparage adoptive parents- I'm just trying to illustrate a point). I might do a search of your posts on Mumsnet and see what you have posted about your parents. I will see that you have said that you take after your mother's tall and willowy physique, but you have your father's curly hair. I might read those 5 posts you made over Christmas last year when you were really fed up with them and having a major whinge, and I might conclude that they are rather petty, absent minded people. I would see the amusing story that you related about them losing their passports on holiday, when in fact it happened to your aunt and uncle, but it was just easier for you to explain it as if it had happened to your parents.

It would be extremely easy for me to form a view of your parents that has very little relation to how you or your sister actually see them. My concept of who and what your parents are is an image of two people, but that image is so imprecise that the image does not accurately record who they are. So my belief in your parents is a belief in someone who has never actually existed. If I keep telling everyone about your parents so that my view of them is repeated for thousands of years, can you really say that in 1000 or 2000 years time, the people who are described are actually your parents?

Throw into the mix a large dose of the supernatural, the fact that all your mumsnet posts are actually written by your neighbour, not you, and the fact that neither you nor your parents have bothered to post on mumsnet for the last 2000 years, then yes: all we have left is an image in our own minds. An image that is unique to each of us.

Even if you look at it from your own perspective and your sister's perspective, although I do think that it is valid to argue that there is a difference between knowing a mortal person and knowing something that is self-declared to be supernatural/divine, I would still say that neither you nor your sister can actually know the 'real' parents. Your sister and you will have seen and heard slightly different things about your parents, which means that your individual concepts of them are slightly different. Yet even though you have 'known' them all your life, you do not know everything about them. What you 'know' is an incomplete picture, an image. If aliens tried to recreate your parents by downloading all the information that you have in your mind about your parents, they would not create your actual parents. Therefore, the parents that you 'know' don't actually exist.

There is no such thing as a reality that you can know. As Einstein said "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one".

God cannot be found by having proof.

God can be found if you seek. Seek and you will find.

But if you are not seeking,or looking elsewhere,then as far as I know,the only other way you will find God is if people pray that you find Him.
And then it is up to God.

And if people do not want to respond to my posts or want to ignore them,I will not mind.

amillionyears - if you say that God cannot be found by having proof, do you therefore agree that he only exists in the minds (or hearts/souls/spirits if you would rather) of people who believe in him?

God cannot be found by having proof.

why not? (other than its a jolly convenient idea for christianity to have come up with )

No
He is in Heaven
We have the Holy Spirit in us [at least I think we do, I am always a bit hazy personally about the Holy Spirit]. Personally,where I worship, the subject of the Holy Spirit does not come up much.

He is in Heaven

How do you know?