The bar bet part does add two important points to the story, in its defense. First of all, it establishes that Job really is a good person…we don’t just have to take his word for it, and secondly, it introduces the fundimental question of the story, which is, “Do/should people act morally because it’s in their best interest to do so?”
robertliguori, I’m incapable of understanding your question. Seriously, though, I can’t answer your question within the context of the book of Job, because it doesn’t explain it. It merely asserts that there are some things human beings are unable to know.
If man is so wise, why would Jesus state most any important message he taught his disciples in the form of parables. Perhaps God cou-ld make the message clear somehow, but I’m under the impression that is for us to know later and not while we are still here. Jesus would not need a vehicle for his messages otherwise. It’s basically like taking the kid’s picture book out each time he attempted to teach us a fractional component of his making.
Why have the stones to think you are capable of knowing what you did not make yourself? We are imitators and duplicators, it is how we have progressed thus far, from two sticks for a fire to gene therupy… we have observed our surroundings and both imitated and duplicated to the best of our ability what was out there already, constantly trying to improve on the designs. What has man done without dissecting some piece of the world already in place around him? They are mere scratches in what is potentially out there. as long as there are questions, there is knowledge yet to be found.
Well, not to be the obnoxious atheist of the group, but if we are allowed to say, “This bit of the story is allegorical, and this bit was tacked on,” what is keeping you from throwing the whole thing out? Why can’t Jesus just have been a metaphor for what everyone should try to be like? Why couldn’t God be a metaphor for people’s need to be reasurred that the Big Beard in the Sky is watching out for them?
If I’ve seemed belligerant in this thread, I apologize. My sister-in-law died on Tuesday after an 11(?) month fight with cancer and so I’ve been thinking about Job and evil and similar issues and frankly, being pretty angry and upset about the situation.
For me, the only comfort I can come up with is something my brother said in his eulogy: He also said that everyone has horrible things happen in their life: with some, it’s a disease like what took my sister-in-law, with some it’s debt, or anger, or lonliness or addiction, but some misfortune happens to everyone. And everyone thinks “It’s not fair”. But if it’s happening to everyone then by definition, it is fair.
This is only semi-relevant, so sorry for the hijack.
In any case, I don’t like the “too limited to understand” explaination. If we are, in fact, too limited, then God failed as a creator if his creations can’t understand one of the most fundimental parts of their world: the nature of pain and evil.
My feeling…and I don’t think I can back it up biblically, is that God allows pain and evil to happen for one reason: if he stops it all, we don’t have free will (free will requires the ability to choose incorrectly) and if he only stops some, he’s a monster behaving arbitrarily or, equally bad, playing favorites. In other words, shit happens at random. God is there to give us the strength to deal with it, but he won’t shelter us from it.
Fenris, my condolences to you and your family. I’ve lost family to cancer, and it was some of the hardest times I’ve ever gone through. If there’s anything you need or that I could do for you at all, please let me know.
Nothing. However, one can decide that the overall message of the story is more important than the bothersome nitpicks. We can make this decision based on the content of the other books in the bible. Is God shown making bets with Satan in the other 65 books? No. So I can discard this easily.
I accept that many stories in the book of the bible may be allegorical but this doesn’t keep me from extracting meaning from them.
He may very well be a metaphor to those who don’t believe. But believers have faith that he isn’t.
monstro’s right: nothing–if we have free thought and believe individual conscience must judge.
Catholicism and Judaism have traditionally supplemented the Bible with the letters, sayings and theological writings of favored Rabbis and theologians, and Catholicism at least for years did not encourage ordinary people to read the scriptures. Since Greek generally ceased to be the language of scholarship around the time Chrisianity and the Roman Empire got big, Latin became the language of the Church. Books were scarce and most of the laity couldn’t read Latin anyway. Thus, most people did not read and try to interpret the Bible for themselves, but got their understanding through preaching/instruction.
One of the thrusts of the Reformation was to allow people to experience and respond directly to the Bible. Bibles were translated into the vernacular. The result was not (mostly) a rejection of God or the authority of the Bible, but the differing interpretations that arose did lead to a bunch of new Protestant denominations. We also got Deism of the type demonstrated by Paine. Catholicism eventually came around and Bible study is now encouraged by most of Christianity–with thousands of pages of study guides and suggested readings for the “tricky” parts of varying quality and slant which can be accepted or rejected by the student.
(I’m not sure whether Judaism went through anything similar–scripture is still studied in Hebrew. I believe women were not encouraged to study the Torah until recently, so they at least must have been mostly dependent on the interpretations of Rabbis for their understanding of the Bible. Please correct me if I’m wrong on this.)
My condolences again, Fenris. You have not been at all belligerant.
That sounds like God saying, “Hey Satan, here’s Job, and no matter what you do to him, he’ll still be faithful.” So that’s God egging Satan on.
Plus, if you read Job (all that middle part everyone is harping on as the important part), you find that Job does turn on God, to an extent. He questions why God is out to get him, and God has to call him on it and chastise him, and Job has to repent. Oops, looks like Satan actually won.
Mort Furd said:
Except if Satan is “the Great Deceiver”, then it would not be out of character for Satan to dress his attacks in the cloak of the power of God. Two birds with one stone, so to speak. Not only have bad things happen to Job, but point the blame at God himself, to boot.
Thinktank said:
Neither the bible nor any god belief are required for humility and love.
Firstly, the BoJ refers to The Satan and not Satan (Hebrew: ha-Satan, the accuser), implying that “Satan” is a position and not an individual. Indeed, it is not clear whether Lucifer held that particular position at that time.
Indeed, the notorious dialogue in Chapter One appeared to occur during a Board meeting (or perhaps while YHWH was holding court) and not in an after-hours tavern.
At the same time, I concede the tone of the dialogue appears to have the flavor of a gentleman’s bet being waged. I interpret BoJ to embody certain pre-Axial understandings of divinity: to wit, the gods are arbitrary and capricious. That tradition was drawn upon, IMHO, to underscore one of the central themes of the center chapters: bad things such as skin diseases can happen to good people. Misfortune is not necessarily a manifestation of ungodliness. Decent people believe this reflexively in the current day; it was not always so (and is not universal today).
(The other central theme IMHO is a psychological one: pushing a particular theological POV on the grief-stricken is worse than tactless.)
Contrary to what Irishman said in the OP, Job doesn’t necessarily apologize in Chapter 42: the translation gets tricky here.
NRSV: “…therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes”. (Ok, that’s an apology).
*[or ok, ok, ok, you made your point -flowbark ]
BoJ has a lot of patches. The beginning and end patches the dialogues that Job has with his friends. Elihu drops in out of nowhere in Chapter 32, probably to address some of the problems that the bookends of BoJ create. (Nonetheless, many of Elihu’s arguments are similar to those of Job’s friends.) It’s a bit of a mess in some ways.
My POV: Neither G-d nor evolution designed humanity to be happy (or unhappy for that matter) only to endure (collectively, though not individually in this world). Justice is a human trait and invention for this world: examples of random events inconsistent with basic notions of fairness or other human frameworks can be observed in nature (eg, the ostrich Job 39.13-18, the vulture Job 39.28-30, etc.)
I think there;s a great deal more than just looking it as a wager… it’s about genuine worship… it’s a picture of both the believer and the suffering Messiah… it’s an example of how not to counsel a suffering person and more
Given this thread is about 15 years old and some of the posters may not be active anymore, I’m going to close this thread. If you’d like to discuss the topic feel free to open a new thread.
Seriously, though, I can’t answer your question within the context of the book of Job, because it doesn’t explain it. It merely asserts that there are some things human beings are unable to know.