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?

But there is no proof for Heaven either: it only exists within the minds of the people who believe in it as well.

I hadnt thought about there being no proof for Heaven either.

For me,the bible is the be all and end all.
It is such a complicated book,that I personally could manage without any other religious books.
For me,I either believe all of it or none of it.
I believe all of it.
I realise that there are a few verses either missing or incomplete,but there is so much more of it,that there is plenty in there to keep me going for the rest of my life.
For me,if I dont understand somrthing in it,then I have got it wrong,and maybe one day I will understand that particular part.
For me,it is inspired by God.
For me,when I do things in the bible,they turn out like the bible says they will.
For me,when you accept that not all things in the bible are logical,it makes it easier to understand.
For me,I do not dismiss a single thing in it.
Do I believe God exists,absolutely
Do I believe Hell exists absolutely
Do I believe Heaven exists,absolutely.

So you also believe that God sent two bears to kill forty two children for the heinous, appalling, desperately despicable act of... taking the mickey out a bald bloke?

That's not a God worthy of worship. That's a God that should be locked up.

Gods choice
Who am I to question what he does.

cant remember the background to that,will read tonight.

It comes down to trust and obey.
You know you have that choice to make.
Agree that people are not going to obey,until they trust God
And they are not going to trust Him,until they believe in Him.

believe
trust
obey

For me,the bible is the be all and end all.

why though?

Snorbs
I am surprised that small boys were killed for jeering at a prophet.
As it turns out,that was not wise.

Grimma,I am sorry,I can do nothing for you.

Jesus himself was sent to to the lost sheep of Israel.

I can do nothing for you Grimma,sorry.

Who are you to question God?

If you choose to follow God's word then, surely, you have not only the right but the duty to yourself to make sure that you are following a deity whose behaviour makes them worth following.

Believing that a) your chosen deity indiscriminately killed children for no good reason but b) that's not something that's worth questioning is, to me, baffling.

Trust is earned. A God that kills kids for a trivial offence is inherently untrustworthy.

I don't want you to do anything for me, no need to be sorry.

You might want to do something for yourself. Either you have thought about the question why is the bible the be all and end all or you haven't. If you've thought about it and have an answer you're happy with, well, why not share it.

Theologian James Luther Adams said, "An unexamined faith is not worth having, for it can be true only by accident. A faith worth having is a faith worth discussing and testing." This applies to life, too.

Which is I guess what we do to some measure on these MN religion boards.

I supppose I have done most,if not all of my personal questioning.
Totally agree that trust has be earned.
So I suppose when I said "who am I to question God",I was more thinking of myself than others.
It would have been better if I had said "who am I to argue with God". So apologies for that sentence.Although it is technically corect,it can be read the wrong way.

You are still avoiding the point.

How can you trust a deity that indiscriminately kills children for no good reason?

God has his reasons.
I am not privy to all of them.
Ovbiously the moral of that story is you are not allowed to mock a prophet,even if you are a small child.

What do you mean by not trust Him?

If you are on the right side of Him,he will look after you.

Someone upthread asked what are the benefits of God

I know that my Redeemer lives
what joy the blest assurance gives
He lives,he lives,who once was dead:
he lives my everlasting Head

He lives,to bless me with his love;
he lives,to plead for me above;
he lives,my hungry soul to feed;
he lives,to help in time of need.

He lives,and grants me daily breath;
he lives,and I shall conquer death;
he lives,my mansion to prepare;
he lives,to lead me safely there.

He lives,all glory to his name;
he lives,my Saviour,still the same;
what joy the blest assurance gives,
I know that my Redeemer lives!

See, I find that to be a deeply unattractive side of religion- the idea that if I believe x and perform y ritual I will be favoured and be bestowed with special treatment that sets me out as being more special and favoured than the rest of the population. It becomes about what the world can do for me, not about how I can grow as a person to do more for the world. What I can get from life, not what I can put in.

I think that is why (some/many, but not all) Christians in particular are so keen to cling on to the idea of an external god who exists independently from us: it is the idea that without him they would lose out on beneficial treatment and not be special any more.

God has his reasons. I am not privy to all of them.

Oh. Well. I'm sure that makes child murder perfectly fine then.

I'm not sure its that central, crescent. DH was once talking to a Tulku; it transpired that he didn't necessarily see himself as a literal reincarnation of the previous lama, more his spiritual successor.

crescent - and buddhists don't really believe in an independent 'I' ... the whole issue of rebirth/karma is nothing like 'be a good mouse and come back as a cat; be a bad person come back as a slug'. I haven't got anywhere near getting my head round what it is but I know its not that!

I don't fully understand it crescent, but I think it is roughly along the line that you will keep being reincarnated whilst your soul still has lessons to learn from this world, until you reach a state of nirvana and enlightenment.

Buddhists don't believe that there is any governing force that doles out suffering as a punishment; they believe that suffering exists in the world and if people don't pay attention to their spiritual well being, they will feel suffering more keenly. If you follow a good spiritual path, and learn from the lessons that each life presents to you, you will feel suffering less keenly, and therefore you will suffer less, regardless of the life situation you are in. If you manage to obtain enlightenment, you will be freed from suffering- not because life will be all wonderful with no difficulties, but because you will not be troubled by those difficulties.

It moves away from the idea that there are external forces that supply good and evil toward the idea that things and events just are - it is only our feelings and reactions that designate them to be one or the other.

The question of how this becomes a guide to day to day life is more complex, but is basically that if you do bad things to other people, you move away from enlightenment, so even if your current life is all a bed of roses, if you encounter problems in the next one you will feel them all the more keenly. It may not be the next life in which you suffer problems, but unless you are moving toward enlightenment you will keep going back to live lives again and again, increasing the risk that the shit will hit the fan for you at some point.

or good karma = you are reborn as a nobleman, bad karma = you are reborn in abject poverty?
No - that's really not much different to the mouse/cat thing. It might be more like this - that in your next life you aren't so attached to material possessions so that your relative wealth or poverty doesn't cause so much suffering (either to you or anyone else).

can an individual try and reduce another individual's suffering or is that interfering with the causality that led to that poor person's state?

of course they can ...I think part of buddhism - the lack of 'I' is that we are all connected. The aim is to reduce suffering overall, not a selfish reduction in personal suffering. Its twin pillars are Wisdom and Compassion, after all.

Million, you said if you are on the right side of him, he will look after you

What does looking after you mean? Will you not get ill? Have accidents?
What about the Christians who are killed, injured or diagnosed with serious/terminal illnesses everyday?
How is it just to let people suffer when you could easily stop it just because they disagree with you?
What about Christians in third world who are starving to death?

million You think it's actually moral for small children to be torn apart limb from limb for laughing at a mans lack of hair?? If they were small children they would not have had the cognitive ability to fully understand what a prophet is. It is normal behaviour for children to laugh at things that look different.

It is not normal to set wild animals on small children ever. People who do that sort of thing are locked up and diagnosed with psychopathy/sociopathy/narcissism, take you pick!