God's Test

[Artsu]

Hello, I first want to say hello to the community, this being my first post. Although I consider myself a free-thinker, I belong to an Orthodox school and must do a religion class ( I detest this idea).

My problem is the following: Today we "studied" the story of "Iov" a wealthy man who praised God. ( Keep in mind I am going to tell the what it says in my manual; I saw different versions of this) Satan imagined that, that man praised and loved God only because he was rich, so he asked God's permission to take all away from him. He killed his 10 children, he took all he had from him and then he gave him leprosy. After all this, he still praised God and then, after 7 years of agony, God returned everything he had and made him have another 10 children instead of the ones who died.

Now, I understand that this story is shocking and I highlighted the parts that seemed illogical ( why would God make him have another 10 children; are children some sort of objects?) but the point I want to counter is the following: Every bad thing that happens to us, every clue that God is imaginary is just a test, made to differentiate the good believers from the rest. I wanted to argue about this but refrained as I didn't have any well thought statements. How would you respond to this? Thank you for reading my post and excuse any phrasal mistakes, English is not my first language.

[philosoraptor]

Your English is impressive, for it not being your native tongue.

My initial, emotional and not necessary logical response to the story of Iov/Job was wow...God is a douche, to let a human suffer like that to essentially win a bet with the Devil, who isn't known for his scruples anyway.  Is God in high school?  What the fuck.  So much for just and loving.  Where's the justice or love in making someone suffer to win a bet?  Seems kind of stupidly arbitrary.

It's much less problematic for me to look at this story and surmise that Job just had really bad luck, because there really is no Devil or God to orchestrate such a ridiculous scheme in the first place.

[Artsu]

Your English is impressive, for it not being your native tongue.

My initial, emotional and not necessary logical response to the story of Iov/Job was wow...God is a douche, to let a human suffer like that to essentially win a bet with the Devil, who isn't known for his scruples anyway.  Is God in high school?  What the fuck.  So much for just and loving.  Where's the justice or love in making someone suffer to win a bet?  Seems kind of stupidly arbitrary.

It's much less problematic for me to look at this story and surmise that Job just had really bad luck, because there really is no Devil or God to orchestrate such a ridiculous scheme in the first place.

Thank you for the response, I had the same reaction when I read this, and could not possibly believe that my classmates don't think logically about this. I am looking forward in hearing more opinions.

[MariaEvri]

I agree with the raptor dude above, and one more little thought that often comes to my mind:
if god is supposed to be all powerfull and ALLKNOWING why does he need those "tests" of faith?

[elliebean]

I grew up in church, so I've always been familiar with the story and it was always presented to me as a very literal, historical fact. Such an interpretaions can only lead to conclusions along the lines of those already stated.

Later on, I read it differently.

By the time I got around to reading the entire book of Job in one go, without commentary from some evangelically biased teacher or preacher, in whatever version of the bible i was reading at the time, I had already began to question my faith and beliefs enough to be able to see a lot of the biblical stories as myths fables, and their themes allegorical. Thinking of it that way, and having read some of the works of Joseph Campbell, I could interpret 'God' in the story as a metaphor for 'the nature of things', or nature itself, some other kind of abstract idea personified. Everything else in the story becomes a metaphor for something else. Then the story takes on a whole new meaning, one that resonated with me at the time and was entirely consistent with an atheistic worldview, IMO. I still consider it some of the best literature in the whole canonical collection, along with Ecclesiastes.

For anyone with a strong enough stomach or intense enough curiosity, I recommend reading (or rereading) the bible through an allegorical, philosophical lens, like you would any other fable or myth, and see what you can come up with. It's great entertainment.

[Logikos]

Hello, I first want to say hello to the community, this being my first post. Although I consider myself a free-thinker, I belong to an Orthodox school and must do a religion class ( I detest this idea).

My problem is the following: Today we "studied" the story of "Iov" a wealthy man who praised God. ( Keep in mind I am going to tell the what it says in my manual; I saw different versions of this) Satan imagined that, that man praised and loved God only because he was rich, so he asked God's permission to take all away from him. He killed his 10 children, he took all he had from him and then he gave him leprosy. After all this, he still praised God and then, after 7 years of agony, God returned everything he had and made him have another 10 children instead of the ones who died.

Now, I understand that this story is shocking and I highlighted the parts that seemed illogical ( why would God make him have another 10 children; are children some sort of objects?) but the point I want to counter is the following: Every bad thing that happens to us, every clue that God is imaginary is just a test, made to differentiate the good believers from the rest. I wanted to argue about this but refrained as I didn't have any well thought statements. How would you respond to this? Thank you for reading my post and excuse any phrasal mistakes, English is not my first language.

Hi Artsu,

You bring up a lot of interesting questions that people ask when they read Job for the first time.  What is God doing making deals with Satan?  Why does God just let Satan make Job suffer, and suffer so terribly?

Rather than give you a straight explanation of these questions, I think you might benefit first from thinking a bit about the book of Job as a whole.  I would be interested in your thoughts about these questions:

• What type of book is Job?  (What kind of literature is it?)
• Who was the book originally intended for?  (What was the original audience?)
• What is the purpose of the book?  Was it just meant to be a puzzling tale about suffering?  Does that purpose fit with the original audience?

It's important that we think about these fundamental questions before we think about interpreting the smaller details - if we don't understand the type of literature, the audience and the purpose, our misunderstanding is bound to skew the way we read the text.

I hope all of that makes sense.  I hope we can engage in a really deep discussion about this book, because once we get these fundamental questions sorted out a bit we can find that Job has a lot to teach us today.

Logikos

[Davin]

Rather than give you a straight explanation of these questions, [...]

Yes, we are vary familiar with not getting straight answers from theists.

[pinkocommie]

Rather than give you a straight explanation of these questions, [...]

Yes, we are vary familiar with not getting straight answers from theists.

Haha, good point.  I think most people here would prefer a straight answer for once instead of the entirely expected 'you aren't reading it right' response.

[Logikos]

Yes, we are vary familiar with not getting straight answers from theists.

OK.  So, I made a judgement which led me to the conclusion that it would be beneficial for Artsu to consider the three questions I asked first before getting to the "straight answer".  I've found that these types of questions often make the "straight answers" make more sense when discussing issues about the Bible.  I've also found that people learn more by thinking through questions for themselves rather than being spoon-fed.  Perhaps you would like to explain why it is a poor approach to begin a discussion of the interpretation of a text by asking basic hermeneutical questions and how Artsu would benefit more from a "straight answer".

[Artsu]

I am glad to see answers from both sides. Regarding what Logikos said, I don't mind doing a bit of research, ( although most people want direct answers   ) but also keep track that I wasn't presented any additional information about these things you brought up. It did say this was taken from "The book of Iov" ( Iov = Job in Romanian I guess) but aside from this story, I didn't know anything else at that time. I'll revisit this thread tomorrow, and for now I'll have to say Good Night.

[elliebean]

Rather than give you a straight explanation of these questions, [...]

Yes, we are vary familiar with not getting straight answers from theists.

Haha, good point.  I think most people here would prefer a straight answer for once instead of the entirely expected 'you aren't reading it right' response.

We can insist on a literal interpretaion, but that would leave us no one but biblical literalist fundamentalists to discuss/debate with. I was hoping for something more intellectually challenging and productive than that. We all know those types are crap for debates anyway; they don't really debate, they just evade questions and reassert the same premises ad nauseum.

I think we should give Logikos a chance to show if s/he's more intelligent and nuanced than that, instead of dismissing him/her outright. Besides, having a debate about fictional characters is silly. We don't get into lengthy discussions over why smurfs are blue and how they procreated before Smurfette came along.....



......unless someone smoked waaaaaaaayyyyyy too much of the green stuff.  

[Logikos]

I am glad to see answers from both sides. Regarding what Logikos said, I am alright with doing a bit of research, but also keep track that I wasn't presented any additional information about these things you brought up. It did say this was taken from "The book of Iov" ( Iov = Job in Romanian I guess) but aside from this story, I didn't know anything else at that time. I'll revisit this thread tomorrow, and for now I'll have to say Good Night.

Hi Artsu,

You've probably been looking at the first few chapters of Job, as they contain most of the "storyline".  The majority of the book is a dialogue between Job and his (not particularly helpful!) friends.  If you have time to read the whole thing, you can find it here (in English) or try out the Romanian translation (though I have no idea how good it is!).  That would be the best way to start thinking about what the book as a whole is all about.  Do give me a shout if you'd like some help thinking about things.

Logikos

[Davin]

OK. So, I made a judgement which led me to the conclusion that it would be beneficial for Artsu to consider the three questions I asked first before getting to the "straight answer". I've found that these types of questions often make the "straight answers" make more sense when discussing issues about the Bible. I've also found that people learn more by thinking through questions for themselves rather than being spoon-fed. Perhaps you would like to explain why it is a poor approach to begin a discussion of the interpretation of a text by asking basic hermeneutical questions and how Artsu would benefit more from a "straight answer".

When a co-worker is editing my code and comes up and asks my what my code means I don't say: "Here's three questions you should answer before I even begin telling you: What type of program is it? Who was the program written for? What is the purpose of the program?" The reason I don't do this is two-fold: I will look an arrogant asshole and the reason my co-worker is asking me is probably because he already thought about it and couldn't understand it completely. So I just give him/her the straight answer instead of wasting time.

[Logikos]

We can insist on a literal interpretaion, but that would leave us no one but biblical literalist fundamentalists to discuss/debate with. I was hoping for something more intellectually challenging and productive than that. We all know those types are crap for debates anyway; they don't really debate, they just evade questions and reassert the same premises ad nauseum.

I think we should give Logikos a chance to show if he's (

Good stuff elliebean.  I agree that the story in Job is "fictional" (bearing in mind that we're using that word anachronistically) - but, the characters involved do represent real things.  It's not a case of interpreting it "literally" (another anachronistic term that pokes its head up far too often in these kind of discussions) but literarily - approaching Job as a piece of ancient Jewish literature written with a specific purpose.  Hopefully by thinking a bit about the questions I asked we can go some way to understanding what the elements of the story were originally intended to represent.

Logikos

[Logikos]

When a co-worker is editing my code and comes up and asks my what my code means I don't say: "Here's three questions you should answer before I even begin telling you: What type of program is it? Who was the program written for? What is the purpose of the program?" The reason I don't do this is two-fold: I will look an arrogant asshole and the reason my co-worker is asking me is probably because he already thought about it and couldn't understand it completely. So I just give him/her the straight answer instead of wasting time.

So understanding the Bible is analogous to understanding code?  That is almost exactly what it is not like.