|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dialogue Between Satan and God in the Book of Job | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
You have also been shown that those misfortunes were common, everyday occurances that happen to people - good and bad - all the time. That does not matter! Whether they are common things that happen or not, they are evil and wrong when they are INTENTIONALLY CAUSED! I quoted Job 2:3. Tell me how that doesn't show Satan caused it.
It doesn't say specifically that Satan was a son of God, but he was certainly among them. I have asked you before, if he wasn't an employee, what was he doing at the board meeting? Yes, he showed up with the rest of them. And God asked where the hell he came from. I do not think there is any indication that he was supposed to be there, or that he wasn't supposed to be there.
Isn't it time that you showed us where there is anything but a master/servant relationship between God and Satan? It's clear that God is more powerful than Satan, which is why he must obey God's limits set upon him. However, no where in there does it say anything about Satan being a servant, and why shouldn't it? It mentions Job as a servant over and over and over again. Why isn't Satan labled in the same way if he is also a servant? God never told Satan to do any harm. God just gave Satan power over Job's stuff. Satan could've made Job a new house, caused a flock of stray sheep to just randomly join in with his. Satan chose the things that happened to Job, and he intended them to be evil (or at least bad in the eyes of Job), and he did it in order to get Job to diss God. Satan intended for Job's life to go to the shitter. He then used his power over nature (given to him by God) to cause a string of misfortunes to befall Job. He didn't HAVE to do it, he could've just let nature go as it does. He could've let God continue to bless him. Satan had the power to do WHATEVER he wanted with Job's things, and he CHOSE to destroy them by turning the forces of nature against Job. J0N
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
This is not mindless nature taking its course. It was exactly that. Every event was purely natural. If Satan had turned Job into a newt, you might have a case. If I had the power to force the wind to blow. And I forced it to blow for the purpose of causing someone's house to fall, would that be purely natural? Do you think it is just coincidence that the moment after God gave Satan the power to cause Job bodily harm, Job got boils all over his body? You don't think Satan played a part at all in that? J0N
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
honda33 Member (Idle past 5161 days) Posts: 51 From: Antigua Joined: |
Still missing the point. What happened to Job was not the result of a conversation or "bet" between God and Satan And you say I am missing the point. You are missing two chapters. The story writer spent the first two chapters telling his readers why all these calamities suddenly befell Job. He clearly showed that there was a supernatural explanation behind these mis-fortunes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I agree. Some have said that the conversations in Job are plot devices. Well, I cannot otherwise see their purpose if these events were all just a part of nature. The writer of the story included them for a reason, because they tell the reason for all these things happening to Job. Else, the reader would look at it and say "Golly jee, Job sure has some bad luck." Part of the story is the understanding that the events were intentional.
J0N Edited by Jon, : Typos
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes: Whether they are common things that happen or not, they are evil and wrong when they are INTENTIONALLY CAUSED! The point is: if they are natural events, you can not say they are "intentionally caused". Storms are not "intentionally caused". Diseases are not "intentionally caused".
I quoted Job 2:3. Tell me how that doesn't show Satan caused it. God said that Satan tried to turn Him against Job. That does not imply that the events were "caused" by Satan. They are still natural events.
It mentions Job as a servant over and over and over again. Why isn't Satan labled in the same way if he is also a servant? It doesn't have to "label" him. The relationship between him and God is spelled out clearly: God told him what to do and he did it. God put limits on him and he obeyed them.
Satan chose the things that happened to Job.... Well, no. He took away everything that Job had. There was no "choice" involved.
He didn't HAVE to do it, he could've just let nature go as it does. No he couldn't. I've already explained that. (Or was I talking to somebody else?) Nature takes its course slowly. Eventually, all of Job's children would have died, but where is the impact if it takes decades? For dramatic purposes, the events had to come thick and fast.
Satan had the power to do WHATEVER he wanted with Job's things, and he CHOSE to destroy them by turning the forces of nature against Job. Don't be silly. He did the only thing he could do without losing the "bet" outright. He had no choice whatsoever. Did you ever wonder why only natural calamities befell Job? Why didn't God send the angel of death to smite Job's children with the edge of the sword? Because that would indicate "evil intent"? Because natural calamities would not be construed as "God's fault"? Let's look back at your favorite chapter again:
quote: "Hast not thou made a hedge about him?" That is, hasn't God protected Job? The point is that God's protection was removed - not that something was done "to" Job. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
honda33 writes: The story writer spent the first two chapters telling his readers why all these calamities suddenly befell Job. "Why" the calamities befell Job is irrelevant. The story is about Job's reaction. The author could just as easily have had Job soliloquize, "To curse God or not to curse God, that is the question...." But he chose to use the characters The setup to the story is not the story. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
quote: Sounds like Satan caused this one directly...
Because natural calamities would not be construed as "God's fault"? Are you saying that God limited Satan's actions in order that Job would not realize that he was being tormented by the God he had devoted his life to? That God was afraid that if Job found out that He was behind all this evil, that Job surely would curse Him to His face? J0N
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
honda33 Member (Idle past 5161 days) Posts: 51 From: Antigua Joined: |
The point is: if they are natural events, you can not say they are "intentionally caused". Storms are not "intentionally caused". Diseases are not "intentionally caused". Do you believe that the writer had a modern view of the workings of the universe? His intended audience certainly didn't. In fact most religious people today believe good things that happen are from God and the bad are from the devil. Some still believe that God directly make bad things happen to people.
God said that Satan tried to turn Him against Job. Did God say that? I believe this is what He said;
"although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Did you ever wonder why only natural calamities befell Job? Why didn't God send the angel of death to smite Job's children with the edge of the sword? Because that would indicate "evil intent"? Because natural calamities would not be construed as "God's fault"? This is just silly. How can you continue to look at this story from a modern view of the universe? Throughout the Bible God has always used what we today call "natural disasters" to punish people. He used bears, lions, plagues and other people to carry out His will. At least that's what the ancients believed. They didn't think that the big flooding was due to some mindless El nino cycle or the increase in storms was due to global warning or that earthquakes were a result of moving tectonic plates or that diseases are caused by microorganism. When the ancients said "acts of God" they literally meant Acts of God. Edited by honda33, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes: Are you saying that God limited Satan's actions in order that Job would not realize that he was being tormented by the God he had devoted his life to? Look at it from the other perspective. If Satan did "cause" Job's afflictions, as you claim, why did he use only natural disasters? If he was so desparate to implicate God, why didn't he send legions of demons (with fake God Squad insignia) to spin Job's head around? The fact that only natural disasters are mentioned tends to confirm that the story is not "about" the disasters, doesn't it? Any disaster would do, since only Job's reaction matters. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
honda33 writes: Do you believe that the writer had a modern view of the workings of the universe? Irrelevant. I'm running out of different ways to say it: the calamities themselves don't matter. If Satan personally smote Job's children, it doesn't matter. If God personally smote Job's children, it doesn't matter. If a giant DNA molecule knocked down the house, it doesn't matter. The story is about Job, not the calamities.
When the ancients said "acts of God" they literally meant Acts of God. Sure they did. And as you admit, many people today believe that God causes everything that happens. So what? If Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by plague instead of fire and brimstone, what's the difference? The point is that God saved Lot. If the whole world was destroyed by fire and brimstone instead of a flood, what's the difference? The point is that God saved Noah. If Job's fortune was lost in a stock market crash, what's the difference? The point is that God saved Job. Can you at least try to look at the point of the story instead of being blinded by the details? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
it seems to me that perhaps if you look at it as the human body and the universe tending towards harm--towards boils and houses falling on babies and such--(which it does...) then god was protecting job before and he simply lifted his protection.
i would have disagreed before that bad things are not a gift. but, it has come to my attention that people who have easy lives don't know how to handle catastrophe. i do. more than that, i have been given precious insight to aid others in their catastrophes. but this is a silly way to read job. it is a fairy tale. it never happened. it is put in the bible to illustrate that shit happens and you deal and that god is not to be questioned because he is god. did you read the end of the book? that's the whole point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
honda33 Member (Idle past 5161 days) Posts: 51 From: Antigua Joined: |
The story is about Job, not the calamities. I don't remember disputing the moral of the story. My contention was with your assertion that Job's calamities were to be seen as some normal everyday occurance. The author clearly went to great lengths to show that calamities were a result of the bet between God and Satan. The relevance to the rest of the story is not up for discussion. That was clearly stated in the opening post. If you and others think that's not fair then take that up with Jon. BTW to be intentionally off topic, I think the story is more about God 's involvement in calamities.. Job may well be just a side issue in his own book. Job's friends claimed to know how God operates while Job at times seemed confused. God never gave an explanation, He just said (my words) I am God and it's none of your damn business. Edited by honda33, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
honda33 Member (Idle past 5161 days) Posts: 51 From: Antigua Joined: |
it is a fairy tale. it never happened. it is put in the bible to illustrate that shit happens and you deal and that god is not to be questioned because he is god Also don't assume you know how God works. Job's friends tried that , God wasn't too pleased. Edited by honda33, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
honda33 writes: The author clearly went to great lengths to show that calamities were a result of the bet between God and Satan. Actually, no "lengths" at all. The calamities are barely mentioned in passing. The vast vast vast majority of the book is about Job's attempts to understand his relationship with God. The dialog between God and Satan - and the very brief description of the calamities - does nothing but set the scene.
Job's friends claimed to know how God operates while Job at times seemed confused. That's kinda the point too: it's better to be confused than to be wrong.
God never gave an explanation.... Exactly. Because faith is about what you do when you don't have an explanation. Edited by Ringo, : Spelling. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Were God truly as loving as you are supposed to believe, He would've not allowed such horrible treatment of such a loyal and good man. Thoughts? Any argument with a premise "If God was this then he would do this" is bullshit. You cannot say what God must do nor how he must be nor put limits on his abilities. So this whole thing is just, like, your opinion, man (to quote the Dude). Also, I think your interpretation of Job is waaay off, as others have already pointed out.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024