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?

Thistledew 11.05am
You do grow as a person to do more for the world than you would do otherwise.

headinhands. I dont know what to do about your questions.You know what is in the bible,and you have almost rejected it all. Do you think anything I say on here is going to change your mind at all?

million. Maybe if you could reasonably answer my last question I'll at least have one less issue with the bible?

Your last post was put ever so nicely, but I think I will decline thanks.

Why would it matter how it was put? If you understand the question and are able to answer then please do so. Why would you decline?

HiH - my guess is that million has no answer other than 'God has his reasons'. Well, no-one can have all the answers...its not having questions about that sort of thing that's more bothersome in my book.

Wonder what Holo would make of the bear story?

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

Now there's a crock of it!

'He' doesn't look after anything or anyone, because 'He' doesn't exist. If he did, and is all-powerful, he's pretty warped, IMO.

expat, I think I may have read elsewhere on MN that you were/are a Christian but are thinking of jacking it all in? Maybe because of what happened to your DD?
I remember you didnt want to be prayed for when we were on a thread together about a couple of months ago,so I didnt.
Do you want to talk more about everything,or would you like to vent more?
At me, or at Him.

million i don't think you mean to sound as patronising as you do but why don't you believe someone when they say they don't believe in god? Why do they have to be venting? Can't they just be saying what they think?

Million, this isn't about venting, that's patronising, it's about belief. And mine is now that 'He' doesn't exist. Someone called Jesus or a near enough compilation to make a sort of history book probably did, but the rest of it is a mythical construct designed to control people, to use as justification for atrocities committed by other people and to try to explain away things that happen for no reason other than nature.

Plenty of us on this thread used to have believe it all because we were brought up to by our parents and families, some were even spiritually abused, but in time, for our own reasons, we came to the conclusion that it's a mythical fallacy.

expat,I didnt know whether you believed or not because you said "He,doesnt exist" and then straight afterwards said "If He did".
If someone says they dont believe in God, I believe them.

Is it ok if I ask you whether you were spiritually abused?

Dont mean to be patronising,will have to look up about what it means exactly,and about how I possibly come across.

No, I was not spiritually abused. If people want to believe in God, good on 'em. Live and let live. It's something that would greatly benefit you to apply to others in that if they don't believe, you leave them to it. It's respectful.

A belief in reincarnation is not, I think, a necessary part if Buddhism. Buddhism isn't that prescriptive. The core of Buddhism is that suffering isn't obligatory and that it is possible to live ones life in a way that reduces suffering.

In that sense I'd say Buddhism is much more a philosophy than a religion. I don't think you'd be kicked out of Buddhist school for not believing in reincarnation. That's not what's important - Buddhism is about how you live your life right now.

I tend to think of Buddhism as a philosophy in a religious jacket. Some of the religous constructs were (I think) adapted from other religions existing in the same areas at different times. I'm not sure it actually matters to Buddhism whether 'The Buddha' existed or not - its a set of teachings and methodologies which don't depend on any reverence for an individual (and certainly not a deity) and which the follower is supposed to test for themselves, not follow because the scriptures say so.

As to suffering - I think its not really as you describe it. Suffering is not so much about externals as how we deal with it (I think - as I said, I'm not an expert). Its sort of like this I think - that we should try to reduce suffering overall (what's happening to those African children is not separate from me) but also we can reduce our own suffering by our mental attitude, most of it down to reducing 'attachment'. Much suffering is self-inflicted - think of the corrosive effects of envy and jealousy . Obviously it isn't all, and I don't really know what the Buddhist take on starving children and illness is but I don't think its in any way that they 'deserve' it because of sins in a former life.

Sorry crescentmoon, I think you misunderstood me. I'm not a Buddhist, I just know a bit about their beliefs. I know a bit about all sorts of religions because, after all, how can one be sure that ones religious beliefs are valid unless one has at least a basic idea about all the world's major religions? It would be very easy to pick the wrong one.

I think you also misunderstand the Buddhist view of suffering. I'm sure that's because I didn't explain it very well, plus dukkha is not a simple translation. My apologies. There's a good 5min intro to Buddhism here. Check out the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path to get a good idea of where Buddha was coming from.

Buddhism doesn't say that people are always responsible for their own suffering (although sometimes its ones own actions or thoughts that lead to suffering), just that it is possible to reduce that suffering. I'm not sure I would necessarily believe that but I think some of the ideas in Buddhism (eg, mindfulness) can be helpful for anyone. And, again, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick regarding reincarnation. Those Buddhists who believe in reincarnation don't, I think, see it the way you are trying to represent.

One could, of course, take the view that Jesus was not the son of any god and that God doesn't actually exist but nevertheless he was a preacher who had some interesting things to say. I'm sure there are some who believe just that. But that would require you to ignore a lot of what Jesus said about God and his/our relationship with Him.

As Grimma says it doesn't actually matter if Buddha really existed whereas most Christians, at least, look at you a bit oddly if you suggest it doesn't matter if Jesus existed. What's important in Buddhism is the here and now and how you choose to live your life. Whether any one person wrote the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path is largely irrelevant. What matters, from the point of view of the Buddhist belief, is that those ideas are out there and that if you follow them your life is likely to involve a lot less suffering.

With Buddhism it has seemed to me that in ascribing the cause of dukkha to desire, and of the four truths culminating in nirvana or a cessation of desire, a oneness with an impersonal ultimate reality, there would be a loss of self, of personhood. In attempting to rise above desire to end suffering, surely one would need to rise above what it is that makes up their 'soul' or 'spirit' or however you want to identify what it is that makes you you. For me, the Christian faith stands in stark relief to this way of thinking, in its personal and loving God, in its value of a person.

Crescentmoon's explanation fits well with how I see Christianity too - that we do not suffer because of our own actions or because of how we do not manage to transcend them

You see mad, if you took that same sound and logical reasoning you are happy to use on the bear incident, and used it again with the Jesus thing, you'd be me :)

Why would god be happy for such a misleading portrayal. Did he actually want people to think he was nuts?

Thanks for that madhairday. Am I being fair in paraphrasing your view as you seeing the Bible story of the bears and the children as folklore? Eg, as with the story of Finn McCool and the Giant's Causeway, it's a story that explained an unusual circumstance by employing a supernatural answer.

So that's three different interpretations of that story from three different Christians in one thread - one "taken in context it's clearly folklore", one "it's literal truth that we are not allowed to question" and one "it's folklore while also being part of ongoing divine revelation".

Any other bets?

You could ask that about a lot of the OT hih

But you know that.

I'm not sure what God thinks. I do believe the bible is the inspired word of God and speaks to people in many situations in many places for thousands of years. That doesn't mean every word is true literally.

I couldn't use that kind of logic around Jesus. I've done exactly the same thing with Jesus - looked into the context, epistemology, etymology, evidence, oral tradition etc etc. And come to the conclusion that it is intellectually and historically robust.

God gave us brains, which is why we need to look into these things on a deeper level, or at least read the work of those who have/are able to.

Ah well Snorbs you've come to the issue with Christians everywhere, and in fact all humanity anywhere - we see things differently. I love it that we do.

I'll say it again though. I do not think there is room for such individual interpretation on the central beliefs of Christianity as set forth in the creeds. All the peripheral stuff - it's great to look into and read around, and often people find God speaking to them through lots of different biblical passages. But I do not think we need to be unbudging on them being literal and true. We need some room for exploration and interpretation. We have reason, we should use it. It's when reason overtakes faith things can get out of kilter - for me they naturally co-exist, two sides of a coin.

I'm sure God has reasons for a lot of this stuff being included. I'll be asking God what they are one day And then again I've found God speaking to me through some of the more obscure stuff in the minor prophets books, for eg. Who knows? There is no definitive answer. Sorry.

Mad you say god gave us brains which would be a fair comment if a, we all had equal intelligence b, we all had equal access to the bible and the other books you think one needs to read in order to find biblical atrocities more palatable.

Furthermore what about people who have roughly the same intellect as yourself that reject the divinity of the bible? Is it because we haven't read the same apologetic literature? (ignoring those who have read and rejected it) In which case couldn't/shouldn't god have added a few extra books to the bible seeing as the bible is effectively incomplete based on your own admission.

No I don't think the bible is incomplete, I think what I was trying to say was that many scholars have spent years researching these things and it can be worth reading their findings and insights, unless you have unlimited time to do so for yourself, and brain power to get your head round it all, which I certainly haven't

No, those who reject faith don't do so because of not having read certain literature, whether biblical or no. In the end it's a straight decision between believing or not, accepting Jesus or not. But that is often arrived at after a journey of such reading, and often not as well. God surprises me all the time.

Reading scholars work doesn't help me find stuff in the OT more palatable, but helps me instead gain some understanding of the thinking that meant it was written down, and the circumstances in which the narratives took place. It helps me place things in context and to gain insight into cultural norms and constructs.