Job

[nobspeople]

Was the story of Job, in the bible, a real story (God really allowed these things to happen to Job) or was it a story meant to convey a message?

If it was to convey a message, what's the message?

If it was a real story, why did God have to do this if he knew Job's character?


Additionally, how do Christians reconcile the Christian view of Job with Job in other religions? Or do they?

[We_Are_VENOM]

I'm guessing that you are perfectly ok with druglords and gangsters killing whole families just to instil fear and make their point. Oh, well, that might explain why you worship such a deity.

I like how my point was deliberately ignored. Probably because there is just no way out of the inconsistency in your logic, behind your critique of Job.

That much, is pretty obvious.

[Purple Knight]

I suppose evil people will read it the exact opposite way good people will. Perhaps that's the point.

Its not a matter of being evil, its just a matter of being determined to make God look bad even if that means ignoring the values in the actual narrative.

I'm not determined to make God look bad at all.

Did I say you were?

You said seeing it the way I saw it was an indication of wanting to make God look bad. Or perhaps I misunderstood you. Either way, it can't be done. God can't be made to look bad (I should say, made to look evil) because it's logically impossible.

Morality comes from the Most Moral Being and that being is simply right and that's the end of it. If that being wants to kill people out of the blue and call it moral, it is moral. If the MMB is not God it's just a very moral person.

People will try to object but I would question where they think morality comes from and who is right (and why) when two people disagree about morality.
1) They might boil the issue down to subjectivity (both are correct, each for his own self) but that makes morality useless and so worthless as a concept that you might as well be verbally emitting farts when you speak of it for all the meaning you'd convey then. No meaning would be conveyed. The concept would be meaningless. Morality is about which rules apply to all people. That you can make up a rule that applies to your own self is just personal choice, but it's nothing to do with morality.
2) They might say the rules of morality come from no being but are nonetheless somehow inscribed on the fabric of the universe. This is a valid view but nothing about who is right and why or how we discover those rules has been solved. Morality isn't useless, but in this view, it is totally unknowable. Murder might actually be permissible and everyone who thinks it's wrong is simply mistaken.
3) They might boil it down to a vote, in other words, it matters what most people want. This is ludicrous as it means slavery is morally just fine as long as you're enslaving the minority.

By process of elimination, if two beings argue about morality, one must be right and the other must simply be wrong, and the one which is right is simply the one with the greatest morality (unless of course a being with higher morality still disagrees with that last one).

Actions themselves are neither right nor wrong unless some moral being dictates it.

There's no point in even discussing any fiction, ever, unless you're willing to accept that the rules of that universe apply to that universe.

OK, that's fine, as long as you don't try to project those rules into our universe. God is not good, in our universe. The Bible proves it.

He's good in any universe in which he exists.

If God exists in our universe, he is good. An omnipotent being must have the power to snap its fingers and make its actions good, or even make changes to the rules about which actions are good in the first place. Those must be powers it has, as it has every power.

[brunumb]

I'm guessing that you are perfectly ok with druglords and gangsters killing whole families just to instil fear and make their point. Oh, well, that might explain why you worship such a deity.

I like how my point was deliberately ignored. Probably because there is just no way out of the inconsistency in your logic, behind your critique of Job.

That much, is pretty obvious.

Nope. Just restating my point which you are unable to address head on. I wonder why. No, actually it is pretty obvious.

[brunumb]

If God exists in our universe, he is good.

What makes the default position that God is good?

[Purple Knight]

If God exists in our universe, he is good.

What makes the default position that God is good?

Logic. An omnipotent being would be good unless it chose to be evil, because it would have the ability (as well as every other ability) to make its actions good.

Are you, Brunumb, all-powerful? Can you do literally anything? If yes, then one of the things you can do is kill off anyone you feel like getting rid of, then snap your fingers and make that a good act rather than an evil one.

Though I still don't believe God exists, this is the best evidence that God does exist. We have very strange and sometimes contradictory morality in our universe and if this wasn't the result of an omnipotent being going over morality itself with a steamroller as it makes sure its each and every action is good, I'd be surprised.

Oh, well, I guess that makes getting killed in order for someone to win a bet perfectly OK.

Are you a vegetarian or vegan? I doubt it. In your life, how many chickens, cows, or pigs were slaughtered in order to satisfy your appetite?

Of course, I can provide more substantial reasonings for your little critique...but I want to play around with that one for now.

That one is fun.

I'm guessing that you are perfectly ok with druglords and gangsters killing whole families just to instil fear and make their point. Oh, well, that might explain why you worship such a deity.

So I'm going to play a little referee here, but I'm not really taking a side. The point Venom made that he's saying Brunumb ignored is that he did make a good case for the fact that sometimes, sacrifices are necessary. We all do destroy other life not only so that we may live, but sometimes for far pettier motives. Now what that doesn't tell us is which sacrifices are necessary and why. I don't think we want a world where all sacrifices for any purpose are permitted, but at the same time you're going to have a difficult time arguing against the idea that a higher being can simply (and morally) sacrifice a lower one to its whims unless you're a vegetarian. And even then, more mice died under the plough for your salad than cows died for his hamburger.

[Tcg]

That's logically impossible. If it's fiction, the established rules of that universe of fiction are that God = good. And if it's fact that some all-powerful entity is indeed filling the role of God of the Bible, one of the powers it must have is to simply snap its fingers and make any or all of its actions into good and morally righteous actions.

In a world of fiction anything is possible. However, if one pays attention to the context of my comment they'll realize it was not addressed to one who thinks the story of Job fictional nor the God under question.

Even if a god had the power to "snap its fingers and make any or all of its actions into good and morally righteous actions.", doesn't mean it would do so. Power and righteousness are two different considerations, at least in the real world.


Tcg

[Purple Knight]

Power and righteousness are two different considerations, at least in the real world.

Not infinite power, no. Infinite power would include, by definition, the power to change the rules of the morality game to suit you. A being with infinite power, true omnipotence, would also have infinite righteousness at its disposal, and this would be true no matter what it chose to do.

In the case that the God of the Bible exists, and has simply refrained from using that power, or caused its actions to be evil instead of good and then simply lied about it, you would need at least a reasonably defensible formulation of what its motive might be for that. We're talking about a supreme being. It's probably not just crazy.

[brunumb]

I don't think we want a world where all sacrifices for any purpose are permitted, but at the same time you're going to have a difficult time arguing against the idea that a higher being can simply (and morally) sacrifice a lower one to its whims unless you're a vegetarian.

Are you suggesting that killing Job's family to win a bet is acceptable? I put it in the same category as drug lords killing families to assert their authority. No sacrifice is involved in either and both involve unnecessary killing. Why would God even entertain such a contest in the first place?

Also, I don't understand how God can perform an evil act and then snap his celestial fingers and make it good. How exactly does that work?

[nobspeople]

...If God knows better than Satan, then why does he have to prove that point? And to whom?
...

It seems to me that it was a lesson for us.

Perhaps
But surely, God could get the point across in means others than killing someone else.

[nobspeople]

Was the story of Job, in the bible, a real story (God really allowed these things to happen to Job) or was it a story meant to convey a message?

If it was to convey a message, what's the message?

If it was a real story, why did God have to do this if he knew Job's character?


Additionally, how do Christians reconcile the Christian view of Job with Job in other religions? Or do they?

The message is the central theme of the entire Bible..the main focal point..which is..

"Never lose your faith, no matter what".

Faith is rewarded. Lack of faith is condemnation.

Faith, faith, faith.

I've always found the concept of faith, in the bible, disconcerting.
You have to believe in God to have faith in it
To believe in God, you need faith
It's pretty terrible circular reasoning TBH

Best I can tell, after decades living as a Christian, faith is a means to keep people under control without providing them any knowledge on the subject at hand.