Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rochester.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!nemo
From: nemo@rochester.UUCP (Wolfe)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Job
Message-ID: <5970@rochester.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 30-Jan-85 16:13:47 EST
Article-I.D.: rocheste.5970
Posted: Wed Jan 30 16:13:47 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Feb-85 02:44:56 EST
References: <5758@rochester.UUCP> <437@topaz.ARPA>
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Lines: 63
Xref: seismo net.religion:5788

> You really ask simple questions, don't you?  Explain all of Job in a net
> news message, already.
So what is net.religion for?  Flames about Ubizmo?  I am not asking for a
teatise on the subject, just a glimmer of insight.  The typical commentary I
have seen tends to sound a lot like Job's friends....

> Briefly, much of Job is an
> attack on people who give "easy" answers to difficult religious questions.
Agreed.
> ... (easy answer a la friends is) suffering is a punishment for Sin.  
Right.  Job (justifiably) claims that God is unfair.
> Job is also written in opposition to
> people who are sure that they know God's inmost thoughts, as several of his
> "friends" seem to think they do.  
Is it not Job who is chastised by God in the form of asking him how or why
God does what He does?  Of course, the friends are reprimanded as windbags.
> I confess that I am not sure quite how to characterize the "answer" that Job
> is finally given.  One thing is clear: It seems that God prefers someone who
> honestly grapples with him than someone who gives glib defenses. 
> God did not come down and give a philosophical answer.  Rather, he
> confronted Job "man to man".  
Rather, He essentially called Job a presumptuous whippersnapper and put him
in his place.  It seems to me that God was saying that man doesn't stand a
chance of knowing what He is up to, and that he should trust in God.  Since
Job repents his accusations of God, he is forgiven.
> One possible interpretation of this is that
> the only real answer to the question is to come to know God well enough that
> we trust him.  Christian commentators tend to say something like "well, we
> know this isn't a completely satisfactory answer, but it is the best they
> could do before they knew Christ".  I think that is a cop-out.  
Me too.  "The ways of the Lord are mysterious" isn't much different.
> Christians do have some new perspectives on the issue, it isn't as if a
> great solution suddenly becomes obvious once you become a Christian.
Yeah, except with the afterlife looming on the horizon, it's a lot easier
to bear earthly injustice and misery when you know the bad guys are going
to fry in hell.  
> If you are interested in the issue itself, one of the best discussions
> for the layman is C.S. Lewis' book (hmmm... the title escapes me: something
> fairly obvious with pain or suffering in the title).  However this book
> includes some of the justifications that Job's friends used...
I'll check it out.
> By the way, one apparent problem with Job is probably not serious.  Some
> people wonder how God could play games with Satan with men's lives at stake.
As put in the Good Book, it sure seems like Job has good reason to do what he 
did.  
> Sounds like a bad science fiction.  Unless you are a fundamentalist, you
> should probably think of the first and last sections of the book as a folk
> tale that was floating around at the time, and the majority of the book as
> sort of a meditation that was sparked by that story.
Thanks for the pointers.  I hope that you didn't take this as yet another
silly net question.  I certainly don't expect to get the Word on Job from
the net, but I do hope to get a few new perspectives on this most difficult
book (at least for me).  The question at the beginning (what is net.rel for)
is sincere, and I for one would prefer to see more discussions of religions'
answers (that's not really the word I want) of the fundamental questions 
that religion is supposed to answer.  At least, I would prefer fewer of the
cross-referenced flames and semantics discussions and more substance.  
As a side issue, I see few references to religions outside of Judaism and
Christianity (obviously most of the people on the net are most familiar with
these, but still...) on the net, but it seems that the discussions could
benefit from comparitive religion studies.
Thanks for the reply,
Nemo