• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

The trials of Job

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by Par5, Jan 1, 2019.

  1. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +1,814
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    I'm guessing the Rick and Morty reference started because of your old avatar, but it's so apt that your conversation could be considered a direct reference to an episode.

    Secret Service Agent: "He's not some sort of living god!"

    Rick: "You don't know what I am! You don't know what I can do!"
     
  2. 2PhiloVoid

    2PhiloVoid Must think of ........... Incredible Answer! Supporter

    +5,184
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    So, you're siding with Job's wife, then? Or, should I say, you side with Nietzsche or Sartre rather than with Kierkegaard and/or Pascal? As for myself, I'll stick with the latter ... as well as with Dr. Tim Mackie who presents more of the "usual" in the following video. :cool:

     
  3. Starcomet

    Starcomet Unitarian Sacramental Christian

    267
    +86
    United States
    Unitarian
    Celibate
    US-Democrat
    (In Morty's voice) Rick it is just a story! The moral at the time was that you cannot sue or question whether what God does is wrong or incorrect. When Job tried to do just that, God told him he was essentially being arrogant. I do not believe such a being would do such a thing and it is just a story that never happened.
     
  4. Par5

    Par5 Well-Known Member

    672
    +425
    United Kingdom
    Atheist
    Married
    It's only a piece of fiction, but if you mean like Job's wife I see god as the villain of the piece because of the cruel way he squashed what he saw as Job's insubordination in order to bring Job back to his more sycophantic self, then yes, I would side with Job's wife and most certainly with Nietzsche.
    I did watch your little cartoon and all it does is demonstrate that Christians are conditioned to say that any action carried out by their god has to be good, even if they are actions that are considered to be evil and cruel by those not conditioned to think in such a fashion. Having someone's family murdered, destroying their livelihood and putting them through terrible mental anguish for simply questioning someone in authority are examples of the kind of actions I consider to be evil and cruel.
     
  5. Neogaia777

    Neogaia777 Apprentice Supporter

    +3,637
    Non-Denom
    Celibate
    Yeah, and it's called assuming the omnibenevolence and omnibenevolent nature of the very most and very greatest a highest God or being ever, the Creator, the source and origin and beginning and end of "all" and all things; I think we should "err on the side of caution" and say that that kind of being must be "all-good", or "always good" (or ultimately good) also, or as well (or omnibenevolent as well)...

    And then try and work in His omnibenevolence, or ever omnibenevolent nature, in with His omniscience ,or always ever fully omniscient nature, as well...

    God Bless!
     
  6. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    874
    +564
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    I think a good study of just what happened at the death of Christ would show that God did indeed forsake Christ, relegated him to precisely the same punishment that the elect deserved. The forever lost will be abandoned by God, and so was Christ, abandoned by the Father. This is just one more reason to see the Son of God as God himself also, because he overcame death, returned from Sheol to rise again. The fact that Father did this, according to Psalm 16, since it is apparently the Messiah speaking to the Father, does not mean that he did not pay the exact penalty of the elect, nor does it mean that he was not forsaken, for a "time" or purpose. Nor does it even begin to imply that Christ was a creature, and not the Creator himself.

    Do you not believe that he "experienced the full brunt of the Father's wrath" (as it has been described) on the Cross? We really don't know what happened, except a few words to give it direction in our minds. We have no idea of flavor of it, nor the severity.
     
  7. 2PhiloVoid

    2PhiloVoid Must think of ........... Incredible Answer! Supporter

    +5,184
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    ...and what is this particular philosophy of "good and evil" you're using and by which you're evaluating the book of Job? Could you share it, or are you "beyond" describing it to us? :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2019
  8. bling

    bling Regular Member Supporter

    +891
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Matthew 27:46 is often used as a “proof text” scripture to show: God left Christ while on the cross because Christ had become this sinful person or something like that, but that is not what Matt. 27:46 is supporting and is actually supporting just the opposite.

    Matt: 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

    First off: to interpret any scripture you have to keep 5 thing in mind: context, context, context, context and context.

    Remember this was not written directly to us and we are reading other people’s mail.

    1. “Eli, Eli” in Matthew is Hebrew for dad, dad or father, father while Mark used the Aramaic “Elio, Elio” translated the same father, father. This could have been a copying error, Jesus said it twice using different languages or Mark might have been more familiar with the Aramaic (both are very similar), also Matt. was thought to be written in Hebrew to begin with, the main thing is it was not said in Greek or Latin.

    2. Why did Jesus use his last precious breaths to make this short statement?

    3. Who was this said for or to? We always like to think it was being said only directly to us and for us, but that is never the case, so who? If you say God then Jesus is wasting his breath, since God has forsaken him (if that is what really has happened). If we say: one of the thieves, what question or comment is this addressing that would help them belief in Him? If we say one of the Maries or John, they might think Christ is praising them for being better than God Himself since they have “forsaken Him”, so is that what He is saying? If we say gentiles or Roman soldiers, they would not understand Hebrew or Aramaic, so it could not be for them. There were mockers that past by and even asked questions but seemed to just walk on. So who else was there?

    4. If you go back to every time Jesus was asked a sincere question or comment, you will find Jesus gave a sincere answer that would help that person or persons (not always accepted well). So are there sincere questions be asked of Christ will on the cross he will have to address? Jesus does provide answers to sincere comments and questions, so could “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” be addressing a sincere question?

    5. Matt. 27: In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. 42 “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the king of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.
    That seems to be a sincere but mocking question, so how best to address such a question? Would using scripture these priests, teachers and elders would know like the back of their hand be a good way to address these questions and shut them up, give them goosebumps and make them think?

    6. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Is the first line in psalms 22 and the Psalms is something all Jews would have memorized especially the spiritual leaders. But why did Jesus not just say: “Look at Psalms 22 for your answer” (at this time the psalms were not numbered so you just quoted the first line to direct the Jew to the whole Psalm).

    7. Psalms 22 is a diatribe (a moral debate over a question between two parties (God and David in Psalms 22) which all good Jewish students and teachers would recognize, which means there is a diatribe quest and strong support for the wrong conclusion to the answer always given first (before the question, right after the question or before and right after the question).

    8. Why did Jesus direct these spiritual Jewish leaders to Psalm 22 for their answer? Look what is says: Psalms 22: 7 All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads. 8 “He trusts in the Lord,” they say, “let the Lord rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him.”

    That is exactly what they have been doing and saying to Christ on the cross. Look some more:14

    I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax;

    it has melted within me.15 My mouth is dried up like a potsherd,

    and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death…. 18 They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment.

    Would that not be what they are seeing?

    9. The correct answer to the diatribe question comes at the end (as in all diatribe) Psalms 22: 24. For he has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.


    The answer is God has not forsaken the sufferer and is with him, just as God was with Christ while he was on the cross.


    It is hard for us to appreciate the teaching style of a diatribe used in a Psalm without reading the 70 or so individual Psalms lament diatribes with lots of discussion and understanding among our peers. As has been shown good Jewish men at this time would have studied the Psalms to the point of having them all memorized and it only took the first verse to bring to memory the entire Psalm, so Jesus is not taking one verse out of context but bringing to mine the entire Psalm, but to whom and why?

    As others have pointed out this whole Psalm is not showing God lift any man at any time, but is with us at all times including being with Christ.


    Why would Jesus want the Pharisees and other religious leaders to think about Psalms 22 while looking at Him on the cross:


    Christ would cry out to God. Psalm 22:1a Matthew 27:46

    Christ would be forsaken by God at His crucifixion. Psalm 22:1b Mark 15:34

    Christ would pray without ceasing before His death. Psalm 22:2 Matthew 26:38-39

    Christ would be despised and rejected by His own. Psalm 22:6 Luke 23:21-23

    Christ would be made a mockery. Psalm 22:7 Matthew 27:39

    Unbelievers would say to Christ, "He trusted in God, let Him now deliver Him." Psalm 22:8 Matthew 27:41-43

    Christ would know His Father from childhood. Psalm 22:9 Luke 2:40

    Christ would be called by God while in the womb. Psalm 22:10 Luke 1:30-33

    Christ would be abandoned by His disciples. Psalm 22:11 Mark 14:50

    Christ would be encompassed by evil spirits. Psalm 22:12-13 Colossians 2:15

    Christ's body would emit blood & water. Psalm 22:14a John 19:34

    Christ would be crucified. Psalm 22:14b Matthew 27:35

    Christ would thirst while dying. Psalm 22:15a John 19:28

    Christ would thirst just prior to His death. Psalm 22:15b John 19:30

    Christ would be observed by Gentiles at His crucifixion. Psalm 22:16a Luke 23:36

    Christ would be observed by Jews at His crucifixion. Psalm 22:16b Matthew 27:41-43

    Both Christ's hands and feet would be pierced. Psalm 22:16c Matthew 27:38

    Christ's bones would not be broken. Psalm 22:17a John 19:32-33

    Christ would be viewed by many during His crucifixion. Psalm 22:17b Luke 23:35

    Christ's garments would be parted among the soldiers. Psalm 22:18a John 19:23-24

    The soldiers would cast lots for Christ's clothes. Psalm 22:18b John 19:23-24

    Christ's atonement would enable believers to receive salvation. Psalm 22:22 Hebrews 2:10-12
     
  9. Par5

    Par5 Well-Known Member

    672
    +425
    United Kingdom
    Atheist
    Married
    Oh dear, I only hope you are not going to start bragging again about how you have studied this and studied that and have more degrees than a thermometer thus enabling you to understand the things the rest of us mere mortals just can't comprehend?
    I don't need a particular anything to say that murdering someone's family and destroying their livelihood, for nothing more than that person's supposed insubordination, is cruel and evil. If you think something like that is good, then all I can say is that I feel sorry that your mind is so messed up.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
    • List
  10. 2PhiloVoid

    2PhiloVoid Must think of ........... Incredible Answer! Supporter

    +5,184
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    That's good to know that your morality is basically built on a house of sand. No, make that: hot air!
     
  11. gaara4158

    gaara4158 I prefer you trust your reason.

    +1,372
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Of course it’s just a story. It’s a story that completely undermines the idea of moral principles by justifying unspeakable cruelty on an innocent man and his family by basically saying “Yeah, and what are you gonna do about it? I’m God. I hold all the cards. I do what I want and no one can stop me. You can’t even guilt me. I’m the ultimate arbiter of good and evil, Morty! I can do no wrong!”

    I am glad you do not credit the deity you revere with such disdainful behavior toward humanity. If you did, you might be primed to believe that voice in your head telling you to drown your children so they can go to Heaven really is God.
     
  12. Starcomet

    Starcomet Unitarian Sacramental Christian

    267
    +86
    United States
    Unitarian
    Celibate
    US-Democrat
    Obviously the moral of the story has no impact on our society. I believe God would never do such a thing and most try to soften the story's moral, but it is what it is. I still find the idea that a man can sue God interesting though.
     
  13. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    874
    +564
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    Clever. Really? Have some respect.
     
  14. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +3,513
    United States
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I actually really like the Book of Job. Obviously it's just a story, but I think it's a pretty sophisticated take on the Problem of Evil. We have a religion that equates righteousness with obtaining God's favor, so we really do need to deal with the fact that bad things happen to good people. Job may be fictional, but there are plenty of real life counterparts who do everything right and have their lives destroyed anyway. We know this, and so did the ancient Israelites. It needs to be addressed.

    I'm not sure it's a particularly good answer to the Problem of Evil, at least compared to more modern theology, but I don't think it's so terrible that we need to rage against it.
     
  15. Neogaia777

    Neogaia777 Apprentice Supporter

    +3,637
    Non-Denom
    Celibate
    There is also for the believer, or someone who becomes a believer in it or through it, or during it, and keeps the faith in it and through it, there is a "promise" from God attached to it or that, that is supposed to 100% sure for those who will keep the faith and not curse God during it or through it, or lose faith entirely, ect, "promise", (promise "from God" now) of much greater blessings, in the end, even more prosperous than before... Not so for the non-believer or one who refuses to believe...

    It's Covenant of Faith, everything God has to give and/or offer comes by and through Faith, not Law or even obedience sometimes, at least obedience to the Law...

    God Bless!
     
  16. Neogaia777

    Neogaia777 Apprentice Supporter

    +3,637
    Non-Denom
    Celibate
    At one point it says "Job did not sin in all of this with his lips", but it's early on in Job 2:10... So I'm unsure if it means "after that", or not...? But if it does, clearly we have every right, freedom, even reason or whatever to complain, be bitter, and have a bitter attitude even, and even be a bit sarcastic even, or get upset sometimes, or feel certain ways, or whatever, and speak out of those feelings to God and "whomever else", and as long as we do not curse God, and in that way "sin with our lips"... When we are under or in or during a storm or a trial I don't think it's possible to sin with your lips unless you are in some way cursing God somehow is kind of what I'm trying to say...

    But you/I/we can do that (get upset or whatever) and feel that way about it or them (trials, storms, tests, ect) and cry out and be a bit bitter and complain, in it/them, ect, But I cannot help but hear someone say to me about this "For all the good you think it will do you... for all the great productivity you think it will bring (you)..." But, anyway, it is what it is though, and Job not only got doubly blessed afterward, but he got the "dual blessing", which is significant in the Bible, Jacobs getting Esau's dual blessing (his birthright and inheritance) by stealing it, or exploiting him, or by taking advantage of him and getting it from him.... then there is Elisha and Elijah, and in that story with the dual blessing, about the dual blessing, and I'm sure there are other places in the Bible about this "dual blessing" as well... It's also sometimes called a, or the, "double portion" as well...

    God Bless!
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2019
  17. 2PhiloVoid

    2PhiloVoid Must think of ........... Incredible Answer! Supporter

    +5,184
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Actually, it doesn't undermine anything in the mythical realm of "Moraltown." Why? Because the very God, the very Creator, whom everyone so often gripes about in His ongoing "ABSENTEEISM" ........................................... actually does show up! Of course, everyone then proceeds to ignore the rest of the story of Job, its outcome, as well as the metaphysical implications of the story.

    The question now is: Why does everyone do this? The answer: because life is so very often painful for each and every one of us and we're each, like Sartre, left staring up through the thick darkness at the stars, wondering if there is a god and feeling that there isn't. But in the book of Job, lo and behold, we're presented with a story where the Dude actually shows up, even if when He does so, it's in less than consolatory terms.
     
  18. bling

    bling Regular Member Supporter

    +891
    Non-Denom
    Married
    That is what I heard from a PHD in New Testament Studies tell me.
     
  19. gaara4158

    gaara4158 I prefer you trust your reason.

    +1,372
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    God places himself above the law. He has to, otherwise he would have to answer for his many, many murders. I believe a truly virtuous god wouldn’t have to do that.
     
  20. gaara4158

    gaara4158 I prefer you trust your reason.

    +1,372
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    The more I think about the book of Job, the more I sour to it. I don’t think its answer to the problem of evil is anything to rage about either, but its response to the moral version of the Euthyphro dilemma seems to be that morality is defined according to God’s purposes, no matter how petty they may be. This gives us no good reason to value God’s morality apart from what he might do to us if we don’t - and it even if we do, there’s no promise he won’t spare us. At this point, it’s simpler to say that God doesn’t exist at all and things just happen to people. Job’s story doesn’t offer a better answer and it primes believers to accept morally evil commands if they’re convinced those commands come from God, ala Abraham and Isaac.



    Showing up only to reveal he’s been in league with the Devil trying to break you tends not to elicit the hero’s welcome in people. I can’t imagine why...
    The problem of evil is often neutralized by appealing to the possibility that God is preventing an even greater evil by allowing what he allows, but in this story we’re given God’s full reasoning. He wants to win a bet with Satan. It’s completely unnecessary, and this reasoning really does undermine the common response to the PoE.
     
Loading...