Job, torture, and the bet (moved)

[Endtime Survivors]

God authorised torture and multiple murders for the sake of a bet.
(Apparently.)

Hi all. Over on a different thread a person made this comment. It would have been off topic to respond there so I've made a new thread here to discuss this comment. I've spent a few days mulling over how to respond because, while the spirit of the comment seems to be having a shot at God for (apparently) being callous, the part about the bet, at least, isn't wrong.

I'm very curious to hear that person's answer to what he believe the bet was. I've invited him to respond here but anyone should feel free to share this thoughts on this topic, too.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Deleted because this might be a Christian only section.

 

[Chris B]

while the spirit of the comment seems to be having a shot at God for (apparently) being callous, the part about the bet, at least, isn't wrong.
.

It wasn't a shot for the sake of the shot: I'm going to say it's a shot which appears to hit its target.
It doesn't seem to make much difference whether the book of Job is read as a literal historical account or as a true parable: the character of God comes out the worst of all those present, and the only plea I can think to submit is a "God's rights" indemnity, such as Paul uses more than once in Romans 9.
God does as he sees fit, and there is no complaint, however unjust, cruel or capricious looks at first, and second, sight. The human Geneva conventions appear to have higher moral thoughts (outlawing collective and generational punishments, for example.)

I can see a Josef Stalin testing a man's loyalty to destruction, or an Idi Amin.
Shaka Zulu is reputed to have done so.

The first two chapters of Job give the message that the correct human behaviour from this book's perspective is to accept ill as well as good as being from God, and in that God is not doing anything wrong, nothing that should be objected to or complained about.

But how does the deity escape from being seen alongside classic tyrants?
"Divine immunity"? (like diplomatic immunity, only more so.)
Where is a good God in Job?

 

[Endtime Survivors]

It wasn't a shot for the sake of the shot: I'm going to say it's a shot which appears to hit its target.
It doesn't seem to make much difference whether the book of Job is read as a literal historical account or as a true parable: the character of God comes out the worst of all those present, and the only plea I can think to submit is a "God's rights" indemnity, such as Paul uses more than once in Romans 9.
God does as he sees fit, and there is no complaint, however unjust, cruel or capricious looks at first, and second, sight. The human Geneva conventions appear to have higher moral thoughts (outlawing collective and generational punishments, for example.)

I can see a Josef Stalin testing a man's loyalty to destruction, or an Idi Amin.
Shaka Zulu is reputed to have done so.

The first two chapters of Job give the message that the correct human behaviour from this book's perspective is to accept ill as well as good as being from God, and in that God is not doing anything wrong, nothing that should be objected to or complained about.

But how does the deity escape from being seen alongside classic tyrants?
"Divine immunity"? (like diplomatic immunity, only more so.)
Where is a good God in Job?

It may be that I've just not seeing it in your response, but the question I asked is what you think the bet was about. Please clarify?

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Deleted because this might be a Christian only section.

Ahh you're right. I've just checked the rules for this section. Sorry about that. Could I ask a moderator to move this to the discussion and debate section (possibly the ethics and morality section), please?

 

[FreeinChrist]

Admin hat

Moving this to Christian Apologetics in Outreach

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm very curious to hear that person's answer to what he believe the bet was.

The "bet" can best be summed up by Job's wife.

Job 2:9 Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die.

The results are in.

Job 1:22 In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm very curious to hear that person's answer to what he believe the bet was. I've invited him to respond here but anyone should feel free to share this thoughts on this topic, too.

The "bet" can best be summed up by Job's wife.

Job 2:9 Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die.

The results are in.

Job 1:22 In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.

No, clearly the bet referred to is this:

Job 1:8-12 ESV
And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?”9 Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “Does Job fear God for no reason?10 Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land.11 But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face.”12 And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand.” So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord.

Now I know someone is going to play the semantics card and say it isn't a "bet" because nothing was offered to be lost or gained, so let's just call it a "gentleman's wager" between two people claiming to be right. I wouldn't call it a bet either, more like a tinkling contest. God wants to prove how faithful his followers are to Satan by letting him torture them? Come on people...

 

[juvenissun]

Hi all. Over on a different thread a person made this comment. It would have been off topic to respond there so I've made a new thread here to discuss this comment. I've spent a few days mulling over how to respond because, while the spirit of the comment seems to be having a shot at God for (apparently) being callous, the part about the bet, at least, isn't wrong.

I'm very curious to hear that person's answer to what he believe the bet was. I've invited him to respond here but anyone should feel free to share this thoughts on this topic, too.

"Bet" is a wrong word. Even God win, He has nothing to gain. "Test" is a more appropriate word.
It is all for the test. So the test is very very significant. Job and his friends are very wise people. Through this test, they spewed out all they know about God. And surprisingly, they are ALL wrong. Why? You may read any chapter before chapter 38, and see if you agree with what's said by any of them (of course you will agree, that means you are also wrong).

 

[Endtime Survivors]

The "bet" can best be summed up by Job's wife.

Job 2:9 Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die.

The results are in.

Job 1:22 In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.

I think I can agree with this assessment. I'd word it differently but I think the conclusion would be the same. I'm not quite sure if Job's story is literal or a parable but I think it does't matter either way; the lesson is the same.

The bet was that humanity has the ability to stay faithful through any kind of trouble whether it be monetary, emotional, or physical. No matter what happens, nothing can take away our choice to maintain our integrity. Job is an example of the kind of integrity that God is looking for which is consistent with the kind of integrity that Jesus taught, too; nothing is more important than loyalty to the creator.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Now I know someone is going to play the semantics card and say it isn't a "bet" because nothing was offered to be lost or gained

Job's integrity was at stake, and perhaps more importantly God's whole reason for creating humanity in the first place (i.e. free will). If he stayed loyal he would have gained something worth dying for and if he betrayed his loyalty then what would he have worth living for?

I wouldn't call it a bet either, more like a tinkling contest. God wants to prove how faithful his followers are to Satan by letting him torture them? Come on people...

God didn't torture Job. He allowed torture to happen. It's a significant difference when it comes to motivations. But, isn't it the same for you in practical life? If you have family/friends, wouldn't you want them to stay faithful to their relationship to you despite various problems which come up along the way?

 

[Moral Orel]

Job's integrity was at stake, and perhaps more importantly God's whole reason for creating humanity in the first place (i.e. free will). If he stayed loyal he would have gained something worth dying for and if he betrayed his loyalty then what would he have worth living for?

That's even less of a bet than the part your OP was referring to. You said someone was talking about this book of the Bible in a negative way, I can assure you, that isn't the "bet" they were referring to. What you've described is an investment with a guaranteed return. Unless we want to play the "Job didn't really know if God existed" card.

God didn't torture Job. He allowed torture to happen.

I know, that's exactly what I said. As difficult as it is for me to remember sometimes, I do make sure to capitalize my pronouns when I'm talking about Him. So the "him" I used was in reference to Satan.

But, isn't it the same for you in practical life?

Not in the slightest.

If you have family/friends, wouldn't you want them to stay faithful to their relationship to you despite various problems which come up along the way?

If there is anything I can possibly do to help them with their problems, I will. I won't sit back and watch hardship befall them, let alone give permission to someone else to inflict such hardship.
And if I wasn't there for someone I cared about, and they complained to me that I wasn't there, I would apologize. I wouldn't say, "Haven't I done enough for you?!".

 

[Endtime Survivors]

What you've described is an investment with a guaranteed return. Unless we want to play the "Job didn't really know if God existed" card.

Loyalty is never guaranteed. There is always a choice. Job chose to stay loyal and God won the bet.

I know, that's exactly what I said. As difficult as it is for me to remember sometimes, I do make sure to capitalize my pronouns when I'm talking about Him. So the "him" I used was in reference to Satan.

Yes you are right. Thanks for the clarification and sorry for the misunderstanding.

If there is anything I can possibly do to help them with their problems, I will. I won't sit back and watch hardship befall them, let alone give permission to someone else to inflict such hardship.
And if I wasn't there for someone I cared about, and they complained to me that I wasn't there, I would apologize. I wouldn't say, "Haven't I done enough for you?!".

The context was not about your loyalty to your family/friends, but their loyalty to you. Personal experience tells us that we want our friends and family to remain loyal to us even through the hard times. Perhaps there are opinion issues or minor issues where we won't mind what they decide to do, but when it comes to important issues, like morality, ethics etc we want them to remain loyal instead of betraying us because of inconvenience.

 

[Moral Orel]

Loyalty is never guaranteed. There is always a choice. Job chose to stay loyal and God won the bet.

Loyalty to God is Job's investment, the guaranteed return comes from God. Maybe Job invests, maybe he doesn't. Therefore Job isn't making a bet.

The context was not about your loyalty to your family/friends, but their loyalty to you. Personal experience tells us that we want our friends and family to remain loyal to us even through the hard times. Perhaps there are opinion issues or minor issues where we won't mind what they decide to do, but when it comes to important issues, like morality, ethics etc we want them to remain loyal instead of betraying us because of inconvenience.

Doesn't follow. You asked how I would feel in a similar situation where I would be on the receiving end of loyalty (God's position) and my loved ones would be on the giving end of loyalty (Job's position). I do not expect my loved ones to be loyal to me regardless of my actions or inactions on their behalf. I expect to be abandoned if I do nothing to help them when I have the opportunity to do so, especially if they have been totally loyal up to that point. They have every right to stop being loyal to me if I am not as loyal to them as I possibly can be.

Let's flip it and ask it in reverse. Let's say you've been a good friend of mine our whole lives. One day another person I know says, "You know Endtime there doesn't really like you, Endtime just likes having you around because you do nice stuff. If I were to burn down Endtime's house, Endtime wouldn't like you anymore." And I said, "Go ahead, I'll watch you burn down Endtime's house and you'll see Endtime stay my friend." Should you remain loyal to me?

This story comes down to God's sovereignty, in that He can choose to allow whatever evil He wants to happen to us no matter how loyal we have been in the past because He created us, and that is how He explains it: "Where were you when I...".

 

[DogmaHunter]

But, isn't it the same for you in practical life? If you have family/friends, wouldn't you want them to stay faithful to their relationship to you despite various problems which come up along the way?

Would you allow somebody to torture those faithfull to you, just to prove the point to that somebody that this dude is indeed faithfull and loyal to you?

I sure wouldn't. I'ld be a gigantic *** if I would do so.

Moreover, I wouldn't demand "unconditional" loyalty and faithfullness "just because". I would want that loyalty to be earned.

It's like "respect" or "trust". It's not something you get by default. It's something that is granted to you after you earned it.

And allowing people to be tortured for the sake of making a point, is not the way to do that.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Why is it that no one seems to care that Job's children seem to be indistinguishable from property? At the very least, children are being thought of as replaceable.

 

[Moral Orel]

Why is it that no one seems to care that Job's children seem to be indistinguishable from property? At the very least, children are being thought of as replaceable.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is it that no one seems to care that Job's children seem to be indistinguishable from property?

You mean like here?

Job 1:4 And his sons went and feasted in their houses, every one his day; and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them.
Job 1:5 And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Apparently the answer is no.

 

[ViaCrucis]

If I may just point out that Job is Hebrew wisdom literature, not a historical text. The narrative framework isn't really so much the point as the questions it probes about the nature of suffering. Job (and his family), almost certainly, never existed.

-CryptoLutheran