Book of Job

humans don't deserve to be destroyed and turned into masochistic torture dummies for the Father and his pagan trinity. Humanity realized this and now God is Dead.

>Job trusted that God's trials were put upon him for good purpose

But how can there be a good purpose when your sons are killed? If those sons were believers too, what's the point?

blatant misrepresentations are a waste of both of our times

The Father is evil. The trinity is pagan. These are facts as immovable as the mountains and oceans.

>The trinity is pagan.
source
I'll wait

pagan is opposed to monotheism as it has multiple gods. Christians say that the holy ghost, the father, and the son are God. Hence they occupy the same position as gods.

so its not a fact, its just your shitty interpretation
you should have said that

>Gods only retort is literally 'dude, were you around when the universe was created? didn't think so faggot, checkmate'.
How do people actually justify this shit.

isn't Christianity at its most basic the idea that life is only a temporary state before an eternity with god?

Isn't a central, constantly repeated theme of Job the fact that Man is in no position, no perspective, and no state to criticize the decisions of his god? Where was Job when the ground he was standing on was formed? when the sun and earth and moon were roped together and set into motion? And yet people think they can make demands of him? Think there is a way of life and a duration that they ought to be entitled to? The ways of God are unknowable

you are illiterate. Just end it

christians are known for being superstitious and have a love for authority figures. Its why they sucked on germanic cock when Rome fell and became slaves to fuedal lords for centuries.

a personal interpretation =/= a fact
if you wanted to discuss the nature of the trinity, we could have, but going and stating your personal fringe tier understanding of it as fact is just obtuse and/or disingenuous

>a personal interpretation
you have no understanding of even the most basic of philosophy so just stop posting you illiterate

Because the Jews needed a sob story before the holocaust(trademark) came along.

and you have no understanding of even the most basic and ancient Christian doctrine
goodnight

I actually do. Quote them if you like. Dogma enshirned by some ecumeniocal council or horsehist however. Proven by the fact that those people failed to actually save anyone's souls.

So why in the first place God created Man? For fun? For having a set of soldiers devoted to him in the "afterlife"?

>enshirned
>ecumeniocal
>horsehist
itstimetostopposting.jpg

youtu.be/zErzRl0iR2A?t=26m13s
26:13-35:16

everything God does is for his own Glory. If that sounds selfish, get over it, he's God, he defines what is good and evil. Again that's the whole point of the book of job. There is no "higher court" to appeal to if you're angry at God. He is the highest court.

The leviathan is stronger than The Father so you can appeal to him as people in the past did. Who then killed and ate him to form this world. As sons of sodom

...

thank you and sorry for creating a fedora containment thread, your service has not been overlooked

The written cause for the creation of man is to work the earth and make it pleasing to him. This is combined with the fact that were were made "in His image," obviously set apart from life as the earth's inheritors. This purpose of man has changed, as the nature of the world changed when God refused to destroy it when it no longer pleased him.

God was set on destroying humanity for its wickedness but stayed his hand and made a covenant with Noah, promising him and his descendants would be exempt from the destruction. God has kept his covenant and redoubled his covenant with further blameless individuals, forming the chosen people. The other descendants of Noah were not destroyed, but God did not offer his protection like he did his chosen people. Eventually the messiah redoubled his covenant again by extending his protection and grace for eternal life to all descendants of Noah who would accept it and become blameless.

Essentially man exists due to an appeal that our potential would be realized. The world was brought about to please God, but we and it continue to exist due to a deity that saw fit to save one lineage and forgive its constant blasphemy and wickedness.

Job is popularly discussed due to the dilemma it raises, but another interesting dilemma that interests me is the story of Abraham, in which God uses Abraham's actions as an example for all people.

He orders Abraham to commit the immoral action of killing his son, and while god stays his hand, the point of the story is that Abraham was willing to suspend morality to obey God, and that was seen as worthy of praise.

The idea that, to be righteous, we have to accept what God hands us in life is hardly radical compared to the idea that to be righteous we must actively act against our morals, should God ask it of us. It only raises the example of those psychotic nutcases in the 80 's who claimed that Jesus told them to drown their children.

It really is a radical position to take on ethics and it's not one I find a lot of Christians are aware that comes with their religion. What do you think about it?

Congratulations, God! You are so cool.

I believe most people are ignorant. Me also. I think that a true God wouldn't ask to kill your son, even if that would be an act of faith.

>I think
you need to stop interpreting things on a basis of
>does it make me uncomfortable or confuse? must be false then
put yourself into the context it was intended to be in. even if, God forbid, the Lord said "murder is good" then it would be good simply because God defines what is good and what is evil, not our own hearts. But of course, murder is not good and God's laws all make sense, but we aren't going to be willing to accept a difficult truth if our measure is simply our own comfort

Don't overlook the context of Isaac's birth, which itself is considered miraculous given Sarah's age. I think that reinforces Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac, as Isaac's existence is out of the natural, non-miraculous order of things. Beyond the fundamental parental urges, Abraham could have rationalized God's demand as a way to undo this miracle and approach a return to normalcy.

Not saying it's still not full of ethical issues, but it's harder to make the same justifications without a clearly unusual "miracle" like post-menopausal aged woman giving birth.

I define what is good and what is not.

First of all you have to understand that the book of Job was allegory, he didn't rebel against God for the same reason Jonah DID rebel against God, because the story is about the strength of your faith being the literal meaning of existence.

I think that's a poor argument, as "normalcy" is poorly defined and could describe any number of things. Every possible event has never happened before, until it has, and you can find unlikely things in any data set given reason enough to look, so I see little reason why it wouldn't also apply to any unethical scenario you could be ordered by God to undergo.

Furthermore, you discredit your own point by saying the ethical issue still stands.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

He wasn't a christian you fucktard, he was a jew.

I'm not trying to "argue" so much as express my thoughts, as you asked, but the way you're replying seems defensive to me. I was willing to accept your slew of poorly defined terms for the sake of discussion. Not saying you have to reciprocate, but if you want to roll in the mud over semantics, take a moment to notice your own gaping assumptions.

I get the vibe this discussion won't go very far so don't expect a reply from me. Be well.

>Best book of the Bible
>In the Old Testament

Is this really what Americans believe ?

>Implying I'm american

not defensive, i just characterized your post as a counterpoint, rather than just you expressing your thoughts. I wasn't attacking you, just trying to have a civil debate. If you have no interest in continuing I won't continue either.

You wouldn't understand.

you can try, I will listen to you

>only
Yeah, man, the ol' bearded grandpa only had that little thing going for him, and that was it.

But I don't understand either, sorry.

Jung has the best interpretation of this book and convinced me that everyone else who read this ESPECIALLY the theologians are downright illeterate.

God did NOT make a bet with a devil. The Devil goaded God by preying on God's insecurities. God is deceived by the devil 3 times. After the third time God laments that he has harmed Job without justification. The devil than vanishes after God comes to terms with the fact he is evil; the devil vanishes because the devil represents the repressed feelings of God. And the deity has no realized his own sinful nature.

And Job. Job was in the right. He remained righteous in the face of an evil deity and even called him out on it. Ultimately though it doesn't matter because God is both the criminal and the judge and he isn't going to punish himself (...that is until the cross).

>murder is not good
Why?

>all of God's laws make sense
So much so that he had to come down and make a new set of laws but also keep the old laws, even though they contradict each other.

God is peak egoism

>it's allegorical lmao even though there's no reason to think so but why not
Stop posting

How did he remain righteous if he was going to kill his son?

>How did he remain righteous if he was going to kill his son?

Are you talking about God here?

Jesus is a part of the God head. The cross is basically God atoning for his own sins. He was originally a deity that was both good and evil. However as he became more righteous he had to shed his evil side and it became a separate deity altogether: the devil.

That's why the Old Testament gives almost no presense to the devil at all. The universe does not need a cosmic manifestation of evil because God himself takes up that role. However he does so largely unconsciously, he is evil the way a child is evil. He simply can't do any better. But unlike a child he has no one to nurture him because he's the highest authority in the world.

It's a very sad story.

Because he was a good sheep just like God wants.

Obviously I'm talking about Job, since the post I replied to talked about job remaining righteous

>dualism
Fuck off

This is very good thanks user.
May I ask where in Jung's works I can find more about it?

That's the point, stupid. You can't rationalize the bad shit that happens, it just happens whether you're a righteous man like Job or a dumb sack of shit that doesn't get simple religious texts that have been explain the world over and wastes everyone's time on a japanese cartoon image board.

The fittingly named, Answers to Job.

>Is that not worth one man's suffering?

No. Nothing is worth any suffering.

The world is not worth the dirt it's built on. The body is not worth the shit it produces. Treating all of this as a magnum opus is tremendously insulting to its maker. Maybe that's why God hated Job?

So basically God is a whiny bitch that with insecurities that takes it out on everything around him.

He wasn't even a Jew, fucktard

Is there anything more retarded than the idea of a perfect God who is also somehow petty, jealous, and given to wrath?

Moving beyond Christianity and into a mix of a Platonic, Spinozan, and Berkeleyan ethics plus a scientific view of the universe was the best thing I ever did.

>dude in the bible isn't a christian
literally calls "God" THe Lord the whole time so hes christian

Amor Fati.
The Book of Job, along with the Ecclesiastes, is one of the few great books of the Bible. They are also some of its oldest, written centuries before Christianity.

In certain version of the book of Genesis, Abraham actually kills Isaac. Veeky Forums textual, historical, and higher criticism power level is sorely lacking.

lies told to you by Jesus

Just read fear and trembling yo.

I am not Christian. Jesus never spoke to me.

you're quoting him

what is a berkeleyan ethics?

I happen to own the only extant copy of the second part of Berkeley's A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, in which he expounded upon how his philosophy concerned ethics. However, I will not divulge the information therein to you.

You really outed yourself as a retard that has no religious knowledge with that post.

>Ecclesiastes

The writer of it is a whiny, nihilistic loser who thinks that best course of action in life is to just try and live as long as possible in modest comfort. It's a philosopher for retired grannies.

It's a book that really only makes sense for the Jews who lived at the time because at the time the Jews had no prospects at all. They were conquered, subjugated, and had long lost the will to fight back. It's basically a philosophy designed to keep them alive a few more generations until they can grow a pair of balls again.

Job is equally nihilistic and like Job says that there is no justice in the universe and whether you are virtious or not has no outcome on your succcess.

It's the wisdom of a group of losers, although not nearly a big a loser as Paul and his kin were.

The question is not if god is good. The question is more along the lines of how do you deal with hardship. The story of job shows that not everyone is going to make it, that there will be pain and suffering, in spite of that there is still a good to aim for, it's about fighting off nihilistic urges in the face of tragedy. Which is a useful lesson because it teaches people to keep going and struggling instead of just ending all their suffering in suicide.

Seems like a great lesson for a unic.

I think it's a good lesson that is in almost every culture. The story of Job is hardly singular to the old testament.

Do you just shit talk do you actually have something to say?

A much better lesson is to embrace suffering and love it like it's your mother.

Christians and Jews have a serious problem with evil and suffering while the superior cultures worshiped the concepts.

Who do you think is going to succeed more? The guy that merely tolerates pain or the guy that's loves the stuff.

Keep going and struggling for what?

That's dumb

For the hope of building the kingdom of heaven here to earth.

>superior cultures

Such as?

Is there any way of knowing how far along that is?

It's a staple part of any martial culture. The Aztecs did it, so did the Greeks, Romans, and certain aspects of Hinduism (Kali being the most promenient deity that represents it).

And it's a type of thinking that also popped up in the martial cultures of Wester europe even when they were Christianized. The myths of Roland and the paladins, the Authorian Legends, and every aspect of Chivalry has none of those meek feelings about tolerating pain but out right death and danger seeking. A lot of it was from an infusion of Pagan mythos.

So even the supposedly Christian cultures really didn't follow through with that grandmother philosophy of Job and Ecclesiastics in a lot of places.

The Christians and Jews that DID believe that stuff, mostly the early Christians and the Jews under Pagan conqueres, were the one's that had their faces stepped on by the superior cultures.

Here let me dumb it down simplier.

Do any successful atheletes take the attitude of 'tolerating pain'? Don't they have all sorts of mottos about enjoying it? Has any great military marched with the motto of 'just trying to get through it'

No they havn't. It's the philosopher of losers. The Jews that wrote Job and Ecclestias were losers that got conquered and were trying to keep themself from feeling too bad about it. It's basically saying "There is nothing we can do, let's try and make the best of it" while their temples are being destroyed, their children enslaved, their women raped, and their dignity destroyed.

Let's imagine three possible world's.
A) a world with no suffering
B) a world with some suffering
C) a world with only suffering

If you think critically about what worlds A and C entail, you ought to eventually realize suffering is necessary and that B is the best world for us to live in.

"More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance,and endurance produces character, and character produces hope,and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us."
Romans 5:3-5

Paul sounds like such a loser here. His big pay off for suffering is hope? Basically the last shrewd of will power left to keep him from committing suicide.

hmmm

Drink the kool-aid

I've read it and other kierkegaard, I was just interested in the arguments/rationalizations of other posters regarding it.

What a terribly sad thing to actually believe

Why is it sad?

>literally calls "God" The Lord the whole time so hes christian
Good to know that Mohammed and Satan are both Christians.

Faith is beyond reason. He should have revolted, everything sensible told him to rebel. Anyone would have revolted.

Job shows that God gives some people faith and other's he doesn't -- i.e. God chooses winners and losers, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Did you even read the bible? Job is OT for fucks sake.

This keeps getting worse.

Guy: God sounds bad.

Christian: God IS bad!

>You can't criticize me! I and the world around you are too incomprehensable for you to even begin to understand let alone criticize!
Was Job the first Lovecraftian book?