Job. Did God really do him justice?

[Gordon]

To Falcon22

Yes it's an interesting story. And contrary to what some of the sadly dismissive atheists have replied, it is an interesting moral discussion wheteher you believe it to be literally true or not.

Firstly of course, however you believe it came about, the world is clesarly unfair and whilst those of us (note first person) can all sit cosily debating this in a theoretical abstract intellectual manner, in the majority real world life is every bit as hard as Job's became with high infant mortality, poverty, disease and death the hallmarks of existence rather than the long life, health care and possessions and wealth of the western rich part of the world.

So point one whether you are theist or atheist. A moral question - What is the correct moral philosophy that we in the west have a right to have and retain what the majority of the world does not or that everyone in the world has an equal right to what currently only we have. If we answer yes to the latter why do we continue to pursue policies that do exactly the opposite by means of unfair trade barriers and unpayable debt repayments?

Perhaps the correct argument is that no one in the world has any right to what we have taken as the norm and that therefore no one has any right to complain if they no longer have it.

Point two - thetheological argument. Satan's accusation was that Job only loved God becuase he had a nice cosy life. Again whether you believe in God, Satan or both, this is an intersting question and it certainly appears that there are many 'cosy' christians today in the west who sincerely believe that they have a right to their cosy existence becuaes of what they believe.

What Job shows in no uncertain terms is that in this world your circumstances are as they are and they can change. Nasty things happen to good people through no fault of their own just as nastier people often get totally unjustified rewards and a cosier earthly lifestyle. Irrespective of your religious belief or otherwise this seems to be to be a profoundly accrate analysis of life in nthe real world.

From a belief point of view Job says that God is worthy of worship because of who He is and not because of any nice rewards you may or may not get out of worshipping him. This to me seems to be a reasonable statement as certainly the reverse indicates a rather shallow belief system. The totally off beam comments from Job's 'friends' and his wife are also to me a very realistic portrayal of what tends to happen today in such circumstances.

In our fallen world we are allowed the free will to do nasty things to ourselves and to each other and Satan is allowed to do nasty things too. If you are an atheist you can just ascribe illness etc. to chance (or bad luck or whatever) but irrespective of any perceived cause we can all lose what makes our life cosy, health, job, money, relationships whatever. If you believe in the Judea-Christian version of God, the correct response is not to blame him for losing what you had no intrinsic special right to having in the first place but to continue to strive your best in whatever circumstances you now find yourself in, just as millions of believers in the majority (third) world have to do from birth to death (often a far too short an interval).

regards,


Gordon.

 

[Vega]

The story of Job predates all the other books in the bible after the flood.
In fact it's an extension of the book of Genesis. The whole moral of the book of Job talks about obedience, patience, humility and all that good shit!

Now we read very carefully the book itself holds some very interesting references to extinct creatures like the "levitian" also the very beginning has a scripture which many christian evangelists very seldom try to avoid or explain it differently because they quite simply can't explain it.

Job:1:6-7 talk about sons of god presenting themselves one day, where satan himself was also there. Sounds like a board meeting, almost like god is trying to make a wager on Job's life with satan. Also Job 2:1

Now the "sons of god" meaning angels good or bad...whom satan was one of them, also mentioned in Genesis 6:2-4 where they interbred with humans to form ogres and giant people.
Note the name satan and devil are mentioned in the very beginning of the bible, only in Isaiah 14:12 is the name "Lucifer" stated.

Sounds like the early translators messed up somewhere with their greek and hebrew texts.

Well the point I'm trying to make is that the story of Job talks about a disturbing board meeting between the so called righteous god and the evil angel "satan or lucifer giving us an inside to the working operations of the creator.

 

[Gordon]

The story of Job predates all the other books in the bible after the flood.
In fact it's an extension of the book of Genesis. The whole moral of the book of Job talks about obedience, patience, humility and all that good shit!

Now we read very carefully the book itself holds some very interesting references to extinct creatures like the "levitian" also the very beginning has a scripture which many christian evangelists very seldom try to avoid or explain it differently because they quite simply can't explain it.

It also mentions 'behemoth' as well as 'Leviathan'. The former with a description which only accurately fits something like a Brachiosaur (Job 40: 15 - 24.)

Job:1:6-7 talk about sons of god presenting themselves one day, where satan himself was also there. Sounds like a board meeting, almost like god is trying to make a wager on Job's life with satan. Also Job 2:1

Whether you choose to believe it or not, the Bible is consistent in stating that Satan still has access to the heavenly realm until the sign of the 'woman giving birth' (Jesus Christ being born) as recorded in Revelation 12. Then he is confined to the earth and no longer has access to the heavenly realm as he did previously. Whether this access is a literal spatial concept or this is a way of indicating a new different and even greater spiritual separation than previously existed is a matter for personal intepretation and belief

Now the "sons of god" meaning angels good or bad...whom satan was one of them, also mentioned in Genesis 6:2-4 where they interbred with humans to form ogres and giant people.

Also references to fallen angels in Jude and of course much more in the non canonical 'Book of Enoch' from which some material in Jude is derived. Lots of different views about that - not surprisingly!

Note the name satan and devil are mentioned in the very beginning of the bible, only in Isaiah 14:12 is the name "Lucifer" stated.

Sounds like the early translators messed up somewhere with their greek and hebrew texts.

This is a strange King James Version English translation. The original Hebrew indicates 'morning star' coming from a Hebrew root meaning light shining. Angels are often referred to as 'stars' (see Revelation 12 again amongst others) and the brightest as the 'Morning Star' signifying Satan's position before the Fall of the Angels as the chief, the archangel, is a reasonable description. The passage is a classic double meaning one referring both to earthly matters (Nebuchednezzar) and spiritual realms, the Fall of the Chief Angel. Perhaps the KJV translators used the Roman God of the Morning Star to give Satan a diferent title in his pre-Fall existence as opposed to his post Fall one. That is only a guess but bearing in mnd the Greco-Romanisiing of scripture (for instance the use of Hades (the Greek God of the underworld) for the place of the dead), it is perhaps not surprising that a Roman God's name crept in, but there can be little doubt as to who is meant. He has of course lots of other (post Fall) titles!

Well the point I'm trying to make is that the story of Job talks about a disturbing board meeting between the so called righteous god and the evil angel "satan or lucifer giving us an inside to the working operations of the creator.

The point here is not that this is a 'Board Meeting' but that after Adam and Eve made their choice, they chose Satan rather than God. Satan thus came to control the world because they gave the control of themselves and thus the world to him. Satan became and therefore remains the 'god of this world', not because God appointed him to be so but because mankind chose to make it so. But his powers are always within limits, just as explained in Job, where he was not allowed to kill him. This is an important theological principle that even though mankind has effectively handed over control of the world to Satan, his power is always within limits set by God. He does not have unlimited power ever. Whether you choose to believe in a literal conversation between God and Satan or that this description is a way of indicating a fundamental theological truth in a story like fashion, is a matter of personal choice, even if you are a Christian believer.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

...Was God's deal with Job right? Was it wrong? Why?

The question itself is unfortunately flawed. There is no such thing as an objective right or wrong. Those are labels people and societies give to their various tolerances of human behavior. They vary wildly and are under constant change.

 

[Oniw17]

The question itself is unfortunately flawed. There is no such thing as an objective right or wrong. Those are labels people and societies give to their various tolerances of human behavior. They vary wildly and are under constant change.

...how true.

 

[Gordon]

The question itself is unfortunately flawed. There is no such thing as an objective right or wrong. Those are labels people and societies give to their various tolerances of human behavior. They vary wildly and are under constant change.

When someone told the great British essayist Dr. Samuel Johnson that one of his dinner guests believed that morality was a sham, Dr. Johnson replied, “Why, sir, if he really believes there is no distinction between virtue and vice, let us count our spoons before he leaves".

If there are really no absolutes, then who is there who has both the judgment and the right to decide what the prevailing right and wrong is for any society?

This form of moral relativism is, as Doctor Johnson noted, nonsense and dangerous nonsense too. Whlst there may be arguments as to what set of morals are the absolutes (or 'objective' ones), if there were really none, any form of organised society would become impossible, as no one would ever be able to accurately predict anyone else's behaviour in any situation.

To take a simple analogy, a red traffic light is an absolute (or 'objective')signal to stop. If this absolute is not accepted, all traffic lights become totally useless, as you can no longer safely go across on a green phase. How much more is this necessary in other human interaction, which is generally far more complex than driving across road junctions!

regards,


Gordon.

 

[Gordon]

The question itself is unfortunately flawed. There is no such thing as an objective right or wrong. Those are labels people and societies give to their various tolerances of human behavior. They vary wildly and are under constant change.

...how true.

Presumably neither of you would have wanted any action taken against war criminals such as the post World war II Nuremberg Trials of Goering, Hess, Ribbentrop etc. as the Third Reich was merely exercising its right to decide its own moral principles which 'varied wildly from those of others and had undergone some change' but which also unfortunately just happened to include genocide and mass murder of all dissenters to their particular world view (the latter of course not being able to be described as objectively or absolutely 'wrong')?

Regards,


Gordon.

 

[Oniw17]

If there are really no absolutes, then who is there who has both the judgment and the right to decide what the prevailing right and wrong is for any society?

Nobody. The only things governments should regulate are murders, economy, and education.

This form of moral relativism is, as Doctor Johnson noted, nonsense and dangerous nonsense too. Whlst there may be arguments as to what set of morals are the absolutes (or 'objective' ones), if there were really none, any form of organised society would become impossible

No. Most early societies were formed by the stronger or more powerful members of a group. Whatever hey thought was right was forced upon everyone else. Today people are raised to believe certain values of right and wrong, unfolding in their believes despite what retrospect you out it i for them. It is completely possible for society to function with people who have different veiws. For example, respect is something you learn through experience and discipline. If someone disrespects you, teach them respect. The watered down society that tries to make everyone happy isn't necessary. Lao Zi was one of the most peaceful people who I can think of, and even he said:

Nature is not kind;
It treats all things impartially.
The Sage is not kind,
And treats all people impartially.

Nature is like a bellows,
Empty, yet never ceasing its supply.
The more it moves, the more it yields;
So the sage draws upon experience
And cannot be exhausted.
Nature is complete because it does not serve itself.

The sage places himself after and finds himself before,
Ignores his desire and finds himself content.

He is complete because he does not serve himself.

,

as no one would ever be able to accurately predict anyone else's behaviour in any situation.

Why? Predicting someone's reation is fairly easy in most situations. People aren't such a complex animal.

To take a simple analogy, a red traffic light is an absolute (or 'objective')signal to stop. If this absolute is not accepted, all traffic lights become totally useless, as you can no longer safely go across on a green phase. How much more is this necessary in other human interaction, which is generally far more complex than driving across road junctions!

Traffic signals are a lot different than ethics, which is WHY human interactions are so complex. In traffic, the lights have established absolute meanings, right and wrong are not established absolutes, because there are no absolutes, only different perspectives of these concepts. None are right because there is no right.

Presumably neither of you would have wanted any action taken against war criminals such as the post World war II Nuremberg Trials of Goering, Hess, Ribbentrop etc. as the Third Reich was merely exercising its right to decide its own moral principles which 'varied wildly from those of others and had undergone some change' but which also unfortunately just happened to include genocide and mass murder of all dissenters to their particular world view (the latter of course not being able to be described as objectively or absolutely 'wrong')?

First of all, accepting that there is no "right" veiw isn't the same as abandoning your own principles. Everyone has different things that are imported to them, and many are willing to die for those things, which is what happened in WWII for a lot of people. Secondly, the Nazis imposed their will on other people, which is against the statement that there is no absolute right or wrong. So, what are you trying to say?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

If there are really no absolutes, then who is there who has both the judgment and the right to decide what the prevailing right and wrong is for any society?

It really depends on how the society is structured. It could be a single person, a group of individuals, or society itself.

This form of moral relativism is, as Doctor Johnson noted, nonsense and dangerous nonsense too. Whlst there may be arguments as to what set of morals are the absolutes (or 'objective' ones), if there were really none, any form of organised society would become impossible, as no one would ever be able to accurately predict anyone else's behaviour in any situation.

The existence of various dichotomous soceities today contradicts that statement. Clearly they can exist with very different moral standards. Human behavior isn't necessarily that hard to predict either. We're naturally wired to avoid that which causes us pain and be close to the things that cause us pleasure.

To take a simple analogy, a red traffic light is an absolute (or 'objective')signal to stop. If this absolute is not accepted, all traffic lights become totally useless, as you can no longer safely go across on a green phase. How much more is this necessary in other human interaction, which is generally far more complex than driving across road junctions!

This anaolgy has nothing to do with the idea of no such thing as objective right and wrong.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Presumably neither of you would have wanted any action taken against war criminals such as the post World war II Nuremberg Trials of Goering, Hess, Ribbentrop etc. as the Third Reich was merely exercising its right to decide its own moral principles which 'varied wildly from those of others and had undergone some change' but which also unfortunately just happened to include genocide and mass murder of all dissenters to their particular world view (the latter of course not being able to be described as objectively or absolutely 'wrong')?

That presumption makes the incorrect assumption that I wouldn't have any tolerances for human behavior. While I consider the actions of the 3rd Reich as very natural as far as human behavior is concerned, I personlly don't agree with it and would probably seek to eliminate that Meme as it could be a threat to the things I like.

 

[falcon22]

falcon,
Job's wife had a choice to either stay with him or leave. she did not support Job and asked him to curse god and she wished death upon Job. It isn't clear what happened to her or if Job remarried.

You also forget that God also allowed Satan to manipulate the mind and heart of Job's wife. Without Satan's manipulation, Job's wife probably would have continued loving Job. Besides, even if JOb's wife was the one who decided to leave JOb, if JOb really loved her, that would still hurt like hell, and no other woman could possibly just replace all that.

I think God's greatest gift to humans is choice. we can choose whatever we want.

No, we can't. We either choose God or we go to hell. You call that choice?

The book of Job is not a story about testing one's life, but one's faith. Human life is not the most important thing to God. He is concerned about the choices we make. If are human shells were important to our eternal life, would he allow so much suffering? what awaits us "entities", as dragon put it, will make this life here on Earth pale in comparison.

God tested Job's life IN ORDER to test JOb's faith. Besides, even if it was a test of faith, you think that's a fair test? Think about it. No, it wasn't.

It dosen't seem like God made a deal with the Devil about Job, just that he wouldn't intervene if the devil made him suffer.

By AGREEING to not intervene, God made a deal.

If I were Job I would just be glad it was over, and God returned him his good fortune as it really makes no difference, he will still make choices and his destiny will be determined by which ones he makes.

If you were JOb, you probably would not have persevered even the first day of torment. There's just no way.

the story is to show that one is supposed to know love and serve god in this world and be with him forever in the next, also that god only gives us the amount of suffering which we can handle.

I don't know how being forced to lose my wife, my children, my possessions, and my health is supposed to teach me how to love the God that allowed all that bad stuff to happen. And I don't think what he did to JObs could be the kind of suffering that could be handled by any of us.

god loved job as much as any of his other creations such as the devil he was teaching the devil a lesson because he knew the faithfulness of job.

Do you think that God loves the devil even though he condemned him to hell for eternity? Also, in REvelation, it's written that God will put the Devil in confinement for one thousand years and afterwards, released and then completely wiped out. Do you call that love?

job learned that the lord he loved also loved him through all his hardship, that was not imposed by his lord but allowed to happen, his lord was with him.

No. Job started having doubts, but he tried to keep on loving God. Just when he was about to lose ALL faith, God intervened.

so as to god loving job sometimes the ones god love the most suffer the most look at his son he was kille din one of the most painful methods known to man, god's ways are not our ways as the book says but those who belive know he loves them like a timmy knows his parents love him even though they leave him at home with vicky most of the time

God killed Jesus. Oh yeah. That's so loving. And then he sent the person who allowed Jesus to be killed (Jusads) to hell for eternity. Wow. What love.

Sure he is omniscient, in a 2000+ year old hebrew translation. Which translates to he can only do, and know what is in a possible, and uncontradicting manor to himself. Alot of Athiests get confused on this translation because of some texts entered into debates trying to debunk G-d.

Dude, the translation does not differ much. Not in the context of Job story. (if you're thinking of the whole "behemoth" thing then yes, it does matter but not with the main idea of the story). I don't know how a different translation can make this story entirely different because it can't. And if God was omniscient, why not make 1 version of God's word that can be translated perfectly instead of this?

The problem is, they think G-ds powers are a little over the top, and so do alot of christians.

God's powers are not over the top. If it was, then everyone would be allowed into heaven, not only a select few.

 

[baumgarten]

While I consider the actions of the 3rd Reich as very natural as far as human behavior is concerned, I personlly don't agree with it and would probably seek to eliminate that Meme

Don't you mean Ideology?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Don't you mean Ideology?

Either or. An ideology can be a meme complex regardless.

 

[Dinosaur]

The story of Job started me on the path to atheism. The story was read to me in Sunday School, and I thought that god's treatment of Job was outrageous. It seemed unfair and I asked a lot of qustions as well as making some remarks about god being unfair, especially to Job's children who died due to god's tsting of Job.

I got in some mild trouble for my blashphemous attitude, but never got satisfactory answers to my questions. It was the start of my questioning the theology being taught to me. As time went by I viewed many of the answers to my questions as copouts: "God workd in mysterious ways; Mere men cannot hope to understand god's plans; You will understand when you get older."

One concept I understood as I got older is the context of the story. When the story was written, wives & children were viewed as property. Killing off the children was about the same as taking his flocks and wealth. If I had undertood that concept, the story might not have seemed as outrageous to me. The death of the children seemed like the worst part of the story. It seemed so unfair that they died because of some argrument between god & satan involving Job.

 

[rjr6]

You also forget that God also allowed Satan to manipulate the mind and heart of Job's wife. Without Satan's manipulation, Job's wife probably would have continued loving Job. Besides, even if JOb's wife was the one who decided to leave JOb, if JOb really loved her, that would still hurt like hell, and no other woman could possibly just replace all that.

site the passage in job where he remarried. Job's wife had the choice to either stay or leave regardless of influence

No, we can't. We either choose God or we go to hell. You call that choice?
Choice is all we have. free-will if you like.

God tested Job's life IN ORDER to test JOb's faith. Besides, even if it was a test of faith, you think that's a fair test? Think about it. No, it wasn't.
if your looking for things to be fair in life, you will be dissapointed

By AGREEING to not intervene, God made a deal.
good point. have to think about that one.
If you were JOb, you probably would not have persevered even the first day of torment. There's just no way.
you are correct. Torture is an interesting study.

 

[madanthonywayne]

When God gives him another wife, does God kill the first wife? Because Job would be an adulterer if he lay with another woman unless his wife were deceased. Or is there something I missed?
.

Guys back then could have more than one wife. Now his first wife, she'd be an adulterer if she re-married.

 

[falcon22]

site the passage in job where he remarried. Job's wife had the choice to either stay or leave regardless of influence

The bible apparantely doesn't mention Job's wife leaving him or dying. Apparantely, after fire and poison and wind that kills all of Job's possessions and biological children, the only people left alive are Job, his wife and his wife.

Job 2: (9) His wife said to him, "Are you still holding on to your integrity? Curse God and die!" (10) He replied, "You are tlaking like foolish woman. shall we accept good from God and not trouble?" IN all this, JOb did not sin in what he said.

Now let's look at what happened after everything passed.

Job 42: (11) All his brothers and sisters and eveyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They cofoted and console him over all the trouble the LORD had brought upon him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring. (12) The LORD blessed the latter part of Job's life more than the first. he had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys. (13) And he also had seven sons and three daughters. (14) The first dauther he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch. (15) Nowhere in the land were there found women as beautiful as JOb's daughters, and ther father granted them an inheritance alone with their brothers.

God simply replaces everything in JOb's life in a better fashion than before as a sort of compensation for the things he caused. Look at how in verse 11 says "all the trouble the LORD had brought upon him."

And even if JOb's wife did leave by choice, Job still could have loved her more than any other woman (not likely since it's a polygamy society). If I had a girlfriend and she left me, I would still be in love with her and I would still hate whoever caused that to happen.

if your looking for things to be fair in life, you will be dissapointed.

My question was not "Is life fair?" but "Was God's deal fair?" But you resorting to this argument kind of shows that life is unfair (which is a fact that you and I both agree on apparantely) and that God's deal was definitely unfair. God had no right to put JOb through such misery. What he did was unfair.

If you were JOb, you probably would not have persevered even the first day of torment. There's just no way.

you are correct. Torture is an interesting study.

Not many of us could do what Job did. Which brings me to the next question...
Did this story actually happen? Or was it created by men as a sort of a morality play? Could a person exist that could actually endure ALL this and still be faithful?

 

[rjr6]

Could a person exist that could actually endure ALL this and still be faithful?

According to the bible, Job did exists, not to disect your statement, lol. loss is completely contingent on the value in which we give something. Job experienced loss of material things, societal posistion and physical health. All of these things are not important to your salvation.
It is quite disturbing that God allowed his offspring to die, but we never know which day will be our last.
Regardless of the fact that God is in control, we are masters of our own destiny. Your statement on faith is complex. God wants us to have faith for our own good, it will bless your soul. You are not giving him something, really, but you are acknowledging your understanding of the universe.

 

[RickyH]

Sorry, that changes nothing to the story.

I didn't expect it to. I can't work miracles ya know

 

[RickyH]

Dude, the translation does not differ much. Not in the context of Job story. (if you're thinking of the whole "behemoth" thing then yes, it does matter but not with the main idea of the story). I don't know how a different translation can make this story entirely different because it can't. And if God was omniscient, why not make 1 version of God's word that can be translated perfectly instead of this?

It does, when the debators argue a point, that is irrelavent. They think G-d, like many christians is so perfect his words can be changed into what they want. When the truth is, G-d can only do certain things, and only has control of so much.

There was 1 version of the word. Then it became 2, then 3, 4, 5 ,6 and so on.