The Problem of Natural Evil

[Kelp(p)]

Hmm, I'd be interested in some kind of empirical survey of believers and non believers to see if their life experiences differed in such a way, ie that unbelievers are not 'tested'.

I don't think you'd be able to tell. Everybody suffers in some way. Only God knows which case is a test and which is just a crappy consequence of life in this world. Our task is to respond to each instances of suffering as if it is a test because that's one of the best ways suffering leads to growth.

[Kelp(p)]

An all knowing God would already know the result of any test. All has already been written in his plan and no deviation is allowed.

So why do you think God tests at all? It cannot be because he does not know if you have passed or failed.

Regards
DL

Of course He knows. The testing is for our benefit, not His. Or are were you one of those students who responded to every question the teacher asked with, "don't you know the answer yourself?"

[Kelp(p)]

No need to feel strange. Conversely, many lightweight apologists oversimplify but serve as a stepping stone to more sophisticated theological investigation, I'm sure you'd concur. Or did you start with Tillich?

To add to JohnnyP's point above, I wouldn't define Job 1 as "sport." It's more like God showing Satan that Job doesn't just serve Him to save His own skin:

8 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.

When compared to the rest of Scripture, the point of the book is endurance in the face of suffering and never giving up because God will take of you eventually. If Job is with God eternally, having grown through the experience of seeing easy answers to suffering broken before Him, and having the reward of never suffering again- doesn't that mitigate things at all?

[whag]

To add to JohnnyP's point above, I wouldn't define Job 1 as "sport." It's more like God showing Satan that Job doesn't just serve Him to save His own skin:

If it's literal, why would God would need to demonstrate that trivial lesson to a doomed, insignificant entity? It seems tantamount to showering attention on an attention-seeking moron. If it's figurative, my reaction is "meh, so what?" It's as relevant to me as Greek mythology in explaining natural evil.

When compared to the rest of Scripture, the point of the book is endurance in the face of suffering and never giving up because God will take of you eventually.

Wouldn't that be false hope for the non-rescued?

If Job is with God eternally, having grown through the experience of seeing easy answers to suffering broken before Him, and having the reward of never suffering again- doesn't that mitigate things at all?

I think the evidence points to Job not being a historical character. His daughters are replaced by fairer beauties, fer criminy! There's something comforting about it not being real.

[Gnostic Bishop]

Of course He knows. The testing is for our benefit, not His. Or are were you one of those students who responded to every question the teacher asked with, "don't you know the answer yourself?"

If he claimed to be omnipotent, your damned right I would.

If you are foolish enough not to then you might wonder why not.

Regards
DL

[Kelp(p)]

If it's literal, why would God would need to demonstrate that trivial lesson to a doomed, insignificant entity? It seems tantamount to showering attention on an attention-seeking moron.

He's not insignificant from our point of view. God stopped His mouth for our benefit.

Wouldn't that be false hope for the non-rescued?

Who are the non-rescued? I'm talking about first about the spiritual benefits, a la Mark 10 and secondarily about the resurrection here (not in terms of the original audience but the book's message for today and to the NT Church). Nobody misses out on those if they stay faithful. You seem to keep introducing atheistic presuppositions into the conversation and it's not very helpful.

I think the evidence points to Job not being a historical character. His daughters are replaced by fairer beauties, fer criminy!

More likely to get husbands and accrue in honor. It was a harsh world, what with no corner grocery and all. Besides, the prologue and epilogue might not even be part of the actual text. In some ways the account is even better if they aren't, because then all we're left with is,

“Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; Blessed be the name of the Lord.”

and also an even stronger meaning to James 5:11,

"Behold, we consider those blessed who remained steadfast. You have heard of the steadfastness of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful."

There's something comforting about it not being real.

I disagree. As history, it's one of the most bare knuckled, unflinchingly thorough approaches to the everyday issue of God and suffering in the history of the Western canon. If it never really happened, it loses a lot of it's applicability because people like you can always just sweep it under the rug (no offense intended).

[Kelp(p)]

If he claimed to be omnipotent, your damned right I would.

If you are foolish enough not to then you might wonder why not.

Regards
DL

In other words, you scoff at a question asked for your own benefit and refuse to think for yourself, instead lazily demanding to be spoon fed. Got it.

Go suck an egg, creep.

[whag]

He's not insignificant from our point of view. God stopped His mouth for our benefit.

What do you mean "stopped his mouth"? You said the prologue wasn't part of the original text (i.e., it was tacked on by human beings), hence it didn't happen. See why I'm confused?

Who are the non-rescued?

The ones who suffer without being rescued and paid back like Job was, obviously.

I'm talking about first about the spiritual benefits, a la Mark 10 and secondarily about the resurrection here (not in terms of the original audience but the book's message for today and to the NT Church). Nobody misses out on those if they stay faithful. You seem to keep introducing atheistic presuppositions into the conversation and it's not very helpful.

I'm talking about the wager and payback of possessions and daughters. Some people think that was a real exchange between God and Satan. You can't seem to make up your mind whether it was or wasn't.

More likely to get husbands and accrue in honor. It was a harsh world, what with no corner grocery and all.

You repeat that a lot as if a) I don't know that and b) it means anything. In fact, promoting the idea of tenfold payback in a harsher world than today's is an even more exaggerated false hope. They didn't have any concept of afterlife, so think about that one for a minute.

If you're faithful, God will replace your daughters and possessions isn't a thing anyone should be believing. The message is sullied by that.

Besides, the prologue and epilogue might not even be part of the actual text.

It surely isn't, and isn't that comforting?

In some ways the account is even better if they aren't, because then all we're left with is, and also an even stronger meaning to James 5:11,I disagree. As history, it's one of the most bare knuckled, unflinchingly thorough approaches to the everyday issue of God and suffering in the history of the Western canon. If it never really happened, it loses a lot of it's applicability because people like you can always just sweep it under the rug (no offense intended).

What are you talking about? When I say "It never really happened," obviously I'm talking about the part where God and Satan make sport of Job in a wager and Job is eventually paid back in possessions and prettier daughters. We're in agreement that never literally happened, yes?

[whag]

Go suck an egg, creep.

What is this, the 1950s? Say what you really mean.

[JohnnyP]

An all knowing God would already know the result of any test. All has already been written in his plan and no deviation is allowed. So why do you think God tests at all? It cannot be because he does not know if you have passed or failed.

Like Kelp(p) said, a main reason is, "The testing is for our benefit, not His." Omniscience doesn't mean we still don't live and experience our lives, exercising free will good or bad. However:

If he claimed to be omnipotent, your damned right I would. If you are foolish enough not to then you might wonder why not.

When discussing Trinity we can also get into ideas of inherent omniscience and omnipotence when it comes to persons of God. That is, God's Word as a limited and kenotic person of God, the Tzimtzum of God if you will, may choose not to have all power and knowledge, while the person of the Father does. This is expressed in verses like:

Source: KJV

Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

© Copyright Original Source

...where God's Word is flesh in Jesus the Son of God, and he does not know everything. Thus, if God's Word had always chosen to be with limited knowledge being subordinate to the Father, then such a test of God's Word interacting with those like Abraham with the offering of Isaac may very well have been a test by God's Word not knowing the outcome, while of course the Father would.

[Kelp(p)]

What is this, the 1950s? Say what you really mean.

If I did that, I'd get moderated quicker than you can say "Ovaltine!"

Twenty-three skeedoo!

[Kelp(p)]

What do you mean "stopped his mouth"?

Sorry, I got a little too churchy in my terminology there. He silenced Satan's disparagement of Job's character.

You said the prologue wasn't part of the original text (i.e., it was tacked on by human beings), hence it didn't happen. See why I'm confused?

I said it might be. Textually, there's not evidence either way because we don't even have Hebrew manuscripts earlier than the Dead Sea Scrolls, which have the prologue and epilogue. The argument that it isn't is a stylistic and historical one. Since I have no theological objection to the material, I'm willing to argue using either possibility as a premise.

The ones who suffer without being rescued and paid back like Job was, obviously.

But he was paid back, either in this life (if one accepts the prologue and epilogue) or(at least) the next. Everyone who believes is paid back eventually.

I'm talking about the wager and payback of possessions and daughters. Some people think that was a real exchange between God and Satan. You can't seem to make up your mind whether it was or wasn't.

See above.

You repeat that a lot as if a) I don't know that

Then stop arguing as if it you didn't ;)

and b) it means anything.

It means that daughters are a meal ticket and source of honor, so getting paid back in them is perfectly reasonable.

They didn't have any concept of afterlife, so think about that one for a minute.

"Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him."- Job 13:15 They didn't have the concept, but we do.

For I know that my Redeemer lives,
and at the last he will stand upon the earth.[b]
26 And after my skin has been thus destroyed,
yet in[c] my flesh I shall see God,
27 whom I shall see for myself,
and my eyes shall behold, and not another.
My heart faints within me!- Job 19:25-26

The old guy was confessing more than he realized.

If you're faithful, God will replace your daughters and possessions isn't a thing anyone should be believing. The message is sullied by that.

I do think Job was expecting that. I think he was expecting to see God's goodness and his own faithfulness vindicated, especially since his "friends" were accusing him of bringing this all upon himself. A restoration of his wealth would just have been a great extra.

What are you talking about? When I say "It never really happened," obviously I'm talking about the part where God and Satan make sport of Job in a wager and Job is eventually paid back in possessions and prettier daughters. We're in agreement that never literally happened, yes?

My apologies. I thought you meant the entire story.

[whag]

Sorry, I got a little too churchy in my terminology there. He silenced Satan's disparagement of Job's character.

That's the problem of thinking this is literal. I don't see how it's meaningful, since Satan continues to disparage and accuse the world without fear, according to your religion.

I said it might be. Textually, there's not evidence either way because we don't even have Hebrew manuscripts earlier than the Dead Sea Scrolls, which have the prologue and epilogue.

I thought you'd determined them added because of the stylistic differences. What about the ridiculous premise and interaction, as well? Case in point:

"And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?"

You really believe it's possible that's how the Lord and Satan interacted?

Most scholars agree that the radical differences in style indicate it was spliced together.

Then stop arguing as if it you didn't [know the ancient world was harsh] ;)

Stop arguing as if that's an answer for everything. If it's a tacked-on prologue, then it's a cruel promise is my point.

As for the middle part, you'll have to explain why that must be literally true. I don't see why those characters must be historical to be meaningful. Not all oral tradition must be based on historical characters and events, so you're way off by assuming "it must have happened" in order to be truly meaningful.

[Kelp(p)]

That's the problem of thinking this is literal. I don't see how it's meaningful, since Satan continues to disparage and accuse the world without fear, according to your religion.

"Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and of the sea! For the devil has come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.”-Revelation 12:12 "Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour."-1 Peter 5:8

Satan can quote the Scriptures and has seen the power of God first hand. He knows He's going to lose. He will always attempt to defy God by deceiving people into following him.

He isn't just afraid, he's desperate.

I thought you'd determined them added because of the stylistic differences.

Where did I say that? I thought someone else did. Even if it is a later thing, it could still be inspired of God.

What about the ridiculous premise and interaction, as well? Case in point:

"And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?"

You really believe it's possible that's how the Lord and Satan interacted?

I don't see why it's impossible.

Stop arguing as if that's an answer for everything.

But it does answer a good number of the "barbaric Old Testament" complaints.

If it's a tacked-on prologue, then it's a cruel promise is my point.

It isn't a promise. The promise is life with God for those who are steadfast, though we wouldn't know that without the NT. Beyond that, do you see a promise that God will restore wealth here? I don't.

10 And the Lord restored the fortunes of Job, when he had prayed for his friends. And the Lord gave Job twice as much as he had before. 11 Then came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and ate bread with him in his house. And they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil[b] that the Lord had brought upon him. And each of them gave him a piece of money[c] and a ring of gold.

12 And the Lord blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning. And he had 14,000 sheep, 6,000 camels, 1,000 yoke of oxen, and 1,000 female donkeys. 13 He had also seven sons and three daughters. 14 And he called the name of the first daughter Jemimah, and the name of the second Keziah, and the name of the third Keren-happuch. 15 And in all the land there were no women so beautiful as Job's daughters. And their father gave them an inheritance among their brothers. 16 And after this Job lived 140 years, and saw his sons, and his sons' sons, four generations. 17 And Job died, an old man, and full of days.

There's nothing here that is incompatible with Mark 10:29-30, which the the Hebrews of Job's day would have appreciated as a description of the plight of the righteous (other than the part about the afterlife):

Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions,

The reward spoken of is not about material payback, it's about finding a new family among the community of believers.

Btw, I also see that it doesn't say the new daughters are more beautiful than the ones who died, just that they were very beautiful.

As for the middle part, you'll have to explain why that must be literally true. I don't see why those characters must be historical to be meaningful. Not all oral tradition must be based on historical characters and events, so you're way off by assuming "it must have happened" in order to be truly meaningful.

You're right. I was overreaching there. Sorry.

[whag]

"Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and of the sea! For the devil has come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.”-Revelation 12:12 "Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour."-1 Peter 5:8

Satan can quote the Scriptures and has seen the power of God first hand. He knows He's going to lose. He will always attempt to defy God by deceiving people into following him.

He isn't just afraid, he's desperate.

OK. He appears relaxed in Job, you gotta admit. Like he's an employee of God having a normal conversation.

Where did I say that? I thought someone else did. Even if it is a later thing, it could still be inspired of God. I don't see why it's impossible.

But it does answer a good number of the "barbaric Old Testament" complaints.
It isn't a promise. The promise is life with God for those who are steadfast, though we wouldn't know that without the NT. Beyond that, do you see a promise that God will restore wealth here? I don't. There's nothing here that is incompatible with Mark 10:29-30, which the the Hebrews of Job's day would have appreciated as a description of the plight of the righteous (other than the part about the afterlife): The reward spoken of is not about material payback, it's about finding a new family among the community of believers.

Btw, I also see that it doesn't say the new daughters are more beautiful than the ones who died, just that they were very beautiful.
You're right. I was overreaching there. Sorry.

No apology necessary. Personally, the tone and composition of the book has the hallmarks of human invention, which is why I don't think it's historical. Especially the part about God asking Satan where he was and what he was doing, then pointing out one man who should be tested *wink wink*.

I also think it's an obvious fiction because Job makes burnt offerings for his children since they might have "cursed God in the hearts." Talk about obvious foreshadowing! And since when can we make propitiations for others' possible sins?