Too much power

[Leonardo]

I’ve posted several topics on Satan/Lucifer here on UM. I think it’s because we don’t know much about him other then what the bible states.

I have always been of the mindset that Christian here in the west tend to give Satan too much power. Christians see Satan every where these days. Western Christianity seems to be unique among monotheisms in the power that they tend to give Satan. In Judaism Satan is totally subservient to God & evil if never allowed to attain such near-omnipotent status.

In Islam Satan is either a trivial creature, not be taken

seriously, or on the last day can be forgiven. He can never be a threat to Allah. But Christians in the west have not always attained that degree of confidence in their God.

I've seen several Christians talk about how Samhain is Satan's birthday & so forth. Why do Christians tend to give Satan more power with every post? If their God is so powerful why fear this deity so much?

I believe I have posted something close to this in the past. However I've been gone for a while & would love to see what the new people have to say.

So..... What say you?

I am of the opinion that the appearance of Satan only late in the 'revelation', when reading either the Christian or Jewish scriptures, is an indication of the issue a stabilising non-secular society, with many of the immediate threats they faced while in their formative stage now removed, has to cope with in respect of the question of "who does evil/bad come from"?

While the society is struggling to assert itself in the region it inhabits, the particular deity that society worships is 'allowed' to exhibit negative characteristics, such as rage, wrath, jealousy, etc. This identifies with the (possibly immoral/amoral) actions that society has to commit against inimical neighbours (with their own particular brand of worship) in their struggle to survive as a society.

However, once this struggle has eased or ceased, and the society becomes the dominant in that region and/or stabilises sufficiently, the requirement for the deity corresponding to their worship to exhibit these negative characteristics diminishes.

How, then, are future generations, now used to the relative ease of being in a dominant/stable society, to rationalise these aspects of the deity they worship? They no longer need their god to be wrathful, murderous or jealous. So, they 'spin' these attributes off the primary deity onto some demigod (or archangel). This allows their deity to assume the benevolent aspect more fitting their relatively stable society's needs, while holding on to the negative attributes as a fear-inducement not to abandon the worship.

Just a theory, mind you!

Edited March 18, 2010 by Leonardo

[SlimJim22]

I am of the opinion that the appearance of Satan only late in the 'revelation', when reading either the Christian or Jewish scriptures, is an indication of the issue a stabilising non-secular society, with many of the immediate threats they faced while in their formative stage now removed, has to cope with in respect of the question of "who does evil/bad come from"?

While the society is struggling to assert itself in the region it inhabits, the particular deity that society worships is 'allowed' to exhibit negative characteristics, such as rage, wrath, jealousy, etc. This identifies with the (possibly immoral/amoral) actions that society has to commit against inimical neighbours (with their own particular brand of worship) in their struggle to survive as a society.

However, once this struggle has eased or ceased, and the society becomes the dominant in that region and/or stabilises sufficiently, the requirement for the deity corresponding to their worship to exhibit these negative characteristics diminishes.

How, then, are future generations, now used to the relative ease of being in a dominant/stable society, to rationalise these aspects of the deity they worship? They no longer need their god to be wrathful, murderous or jealous. So, they 'spin' these attributes off the primary deity onto some demigod (or archangel). This allows their deity to assume the benevolent aspect more fitting their relatively stable society's needs, while holding on to the negative attributes as a fear-inducement not to abandon the worship.

Just a theory, mind you!

I like that idea Leo. Makes me think of the scapegoat concept a litle bit. New rulers move into the land and the old god is demonized and turned into the scapegoat, the one to blame for all the people who stayed. He was weak and inferior and they lost. This way the fleeing tribesmen lose the hearts and minds of the people and are forced to move on rather than retake what was theirs because the deity has been superceded. People are fickle and will follow the strongest not the original necessarily. Who was the scapegoat? Satan or Azazel or are they the same?

[Mr Walker]

Maybe I missed something some of you still haven't anwsered why Christian tend to give Satan more power then other Judeo-Christian faiths.

Ah I hadnt recognised that as the core of your question There are many posible reasons One is the point at which christianity is presently evolved It often reflects metaphorically the very real battle in humans hearts and souls between good and evil. Much modern christianity also takes into account the role of satan in the bible from genesis to revelations. this is a different version of satan to the purely jewish or the muslim variant and does possess greater free will and thus ability for harm(power)

Arguably, many christians do not see satan as a pawn of god because that is not the story the bible tells. While satan is restricted by god he retains many freedoms and the ability to act as he wishes. (at least on earth)

Secondly, and perhaps sadly, the catholic church, in creating both the concept of everlasting hell followed by the addition of satan as master of hell by later writers gives historical satan a much greater power than he deserves biblically.

Satan, according to the bible, dies in the fires which consume and renew earth, along with all the fallen angels and the lost souls.

Thus he has no power after that Catholicism basically changed this bibblical perspective perhaps through honest misunderstanding, or perhaps to incerase the fear factor of hell and satan, to try and scare people to convert. An irony really given that the bible clearly demonstrates that the only relationship actually possible with god must be based on love and not fear.

[+Sherapy]

I am of the opinion that the appearance of Satan only late in the 'revelation', when reading either the Christian or Jewish scriptures, is an indication of the issue a stabilising non-secular society, with many of the immediate threats they faced while in their formative stage now removed, has to cope with in respect of the question of "who does evil/bad come from"?

While the society is struggling to assert itself in the region it inhabits, the particular deity that society worships is 'allowed' to exhibit negative characteristics, such as rage, wrath, jealousy, etc. This identifies with the (possibly immoral/amoral) actions that society has to commit against inimical neighbours (with their own particular brand of worship) in their struggle to survive as a society.

However, once this struggle has eased or ceased, and the society becomes the dominant in that region and/or stabilises sufficiently, the requirement for the deity corresponding to their worship to exhibit these negative characteristics diminishes.

How, then, are future generations, now used to the relative ease of being in a dominant/stable society, to rationalise these aspects of the deity they worship? They no longer need their god to be wrathful, murderous or jealous. So, they 'spin' these attributes off the primary deity onto some demigod (or archangel). This allows their deity to assume the benevolent aspect more fitting their relatively stable society's needs, while holding on to the negative attributes as a fear-inducement not to abandon the worship.

Just a theory, mind you!

Sounds like you read a lot of Nietzsche.

17. ...Wherever the will to power begins to decline, in whatever form, there is always an accompanying decline physiologically, a decadence. The divinity of this decadence, shorn of its masculine virtues and passions, is converted perforce into a god of the physiologically degraded, of the weak. Of course, they do not call themselves the weak; they call themselves "the good." . . . No hint is needed to indicate the moments in history at which the dualistic fiction of a good and an evil god first became possible. The same instinct which prompts the inferior to reduce their own god to "goodness-in-itself" also prompts them to eliminate all good qualities from the god of their superiors; they make revenge on their masters by making a devil of the latter's god.--The good god, and the devil like him--both are abortions of decadence.

http://www.fns.org.uk/ac.htm

[Marby]

You got it luvie..... the ultimate scare tactic lol well they stole the idea off older religions but hey all just a scare tactic

I thought I was smart using monsters and even Freddy with Becky.....until she announced that she loves monsters and she pretnds to be Freddy....ohh good grief .........Now? well she is bored with Freddy she now tells me there is a ghost that is in her room and plays with her toys

I am fresh out of scare tactics for that kid...........sigh!! Ohh nope I still use the car wash scare tactic .....see Becky hates it when I drive through the automatic car wash...the big brushes scare her.......so if I want her to go to bed on time.if she balls at me and says NO!!.........I say - ok then let me get my keys and off to the car wash for Becky....................annnnnnnd that shuts her up and before I know it, she is in her bed teeth brushed and all:w00t:

Becky is officially one of the coolest kids ever. Loves monsters, wants to be Freddie, but that car wash is the ultimate in terror!

But yeah, I see Satan as nothing more than a scare tactic to keep everyone doing what the church wants them to do.

[Slorri]

Because they haven't actually studied the Bible. That's the only possible answer I can come up with because Scripture clearly teaches that Satan is not God's equal, and teaches that God protects His children.

I think so too. It has become an ad lib religion.

Now that our best men are effectively tearing their myths apart, they are not too worried.

This religion has got a life on its own.

[Beckys_Mom]

Becky is officially one of the coolest kids ever. Loves monsters, wants to be Freddie, but that car wash is the ultimate in terror!

But yeah, I see Satan as nothing more than a scare tactic to keep everyone doing what the church wants them to do.

If I tell her that monsters etc are not real.she laughs and says they are if I say so...go on mommy just pretend they are real ha ha........(lil brat lol). awww to be so young and so full of wacky imagination eh?...but she will say - ghosts arent real, only because she thinks ghosts are just plain borring!!!

What am I going to do when she out grows her fear from the car wash?

[+Link of Hyrule]

Because they haven't actually studied the Bible. That's the only possible answer I can come up with because Scripture clearly teaches that Satan is not God's equal, and teaches that God protects His children.

That echoes my sentiments also How could Satan be equal if he has to ASK permission from God before doing anything????

[Marby]

If I tell her that monsters etc are not real.she laughs and says they are if I say so...go on mommy just pretend they are real ha ha........(lil brat lol). awww to be so young and so full of wacky imagination eh?...but she will say - ghosts arent real, only because she thinks ghosts are just plain borring!!!

What am I going to do when she out grows her fear from the car wash?

It seems to me that the more macabre the better with her, so I would think that once she gets over the fear of the car wash, experiment to see if she fears things like... I dunno, the vacuum cleaner or butterflies. It might be your only hope. She's too cool for monsters and ghosts!

Oh yeah... for the record, I was like that as a kid. I loved graveyards but if I saw a butterfly, oh, until I was about 7 years old, I would have a panic attack and go hide.

Edited March 20, 2010 by Marby

[Mr Walker]

That echoes my sentiments also How could Satan be equal if he has to ASK permission from God before doing anything????

Im not at all sure that this is so, biblically speaking. Many use the case of job, yet that was clearly a special case and described as such. Job was under the specific protection of god and had a special relationship with him. Satan argued to those attending a meeting with god, that if job was like all other men, and had gods special protection removed, then he would not continue to love god. God agreed to remove his protection to illustrate whether satan was right or not.

Through increasiong trials satan did everything he could to break the connection between and love of job for god. And yet he failed, illustrating that an ordinary unprotected human could also choose to folow god thtrough all trials and tribulations simply through love. Finally god reurned to job all he had lost many times over (although one cant help feeling sorry for those killed in the process such as his original wife)

Of course if this meant her salvation and place in heaven then logically and theolgically speaking even that was a blessing rather than a punishment.

It is interesting that satan was in heaven without gods knowledge or approval, given gods comments to satan Basically "what are you doing here, youre supposed to be on earth"?

Implicit in this is not just free will, but that god was not omniscient when it came to satan (or indeed to peoples choices) God is only stronger than satan in that he has greater personal powers abilities and resources available to him, and more angels at his command.

This does not mean satan is his pawn, rather that satan chooses to fight a losing battle against superior resources, tactics, and numbers.

Edited March 21, 2010 by Mr Walker

[mklsgl]

Im not at all sure that this is so, biblically speaking. Many use the case of job, yet that was clearly a special case and described as such. Job was under the specific protection of god and had a special relationship with him. Satan argued to those attending a meeting with god, that if job was like all other men, and had gods special protection removed, then he would not continue to love god. God agreed to remove his protection to illustrate whether satan was right or not.

Through increasiong trials satan did everything he could to break the connection between and love of job for god. And yet he failed, illustrating that an ordinary unprotected human could also choose to folow god thtrough all trials and tribulations simply through love. Finally god reurned to job all he had lost many times over (although one cant help feeling sorry for those killed in the process such as his original wife)

Of course if this meant her salvation and place in heaven then logically and theolgically speaking even that was a blessing rather than a punishment.

It is interesting that satan was in heaven without gods knowledge or approval, given gods comments to satan Basically "what are you doing here, youre supposed to be on earth"?

Implicit in this is not just free will, but that god was not omniscient when it came to satan (or indeed to peoples choices) God is only stronger than satan in that he has greater personal powers abilities and resources available to him, and more angels at his command.

This does not mean satan is his pawn, rather that satan chooses to fight a losing battle against superior resources, tactics, and numbers.

This is one the worst interpretations of Job that I've ever read. To assert that [G-d] is not omniscient is flat-out wrong. The Ramban explains that the tests of the righteous are always for their own benefit. [G-d] certainly knows that they will succeed, thus he tests them to allow them to actualize their own potential. The reward for good intent is not nearly as great as the reward for good deed. The purpose of man is to bring sanctity from his inner being into the physical world. This requires him to translate intent into deed.

[norwood1026]

That echoes my sentiments also How could Satan be equal if he has to ASK permission from God before doing anything????

In the OT you would be correct however in the NT Satan seems to be a being with much more power then in the OT. We do not read about him asking God for premission for anything.

On a side note if Satan is asking God for premission to do these things then isn't he working for God & playing along with his plan? Whatever that may be. Why punish him for doing what you're allowing him to do?

[+Link of Hyrule]

In the OT you would be correct however in the NT Satan seems to be a being with much more power then in the OT. We do not read about him asking God for premission for anything.

On a side note if Satan is asking God for premission to do these things then isn't he working for God & playing along with his plan? Whatever that may be. Why punish him for doing what you're allowing him to do?

Nothing in the New Testament sets up Satan as a rebellious angel (except a spurious interpretation of a passage in Revelation which refers to a seven-headed ten-horned beast - other interpretations are more consistent with the text, though unless requested I won't expand on this here).

On your side note, I don't remember claiming God would punish Satan. As you say, Satan is working for God, to reach God's plan (whatever that may be). That's exactly what the Jewish position argues also

~ PA

[norwood1026]

Nothing in the New Testament sets up Satan as a rebellious angel (except a spurious interpretation of a passage in Revelation which refers to a seven-headed ten-horned beast - other interpretations are more consistent with the text, though unless requested I won't expand on this here).

On your side note, I don't remember claiming God would punish Satan. As you say, Satan is working for God, to reach God's plan (whatever that may be). That's exactly what the Jewish position argues also

~ PA

In the OT Satan is working for God there is nothing saying that in the NT. We all know the story how Satan will lose & who ever doesn't believe in God wil burn with him in the lake of fire.

Revelation 20:15 If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. I highly doubt if Satan name is written in that book.. that is unless God calls him back while the rest of us burn.

Edited March 23, 2010 by norwood1026

[+Link of Hyrule]

In the OT Satan is working for God there is nothing saying that in the NT. We all know the story how Satan will lose & who ever doesn't believe in God wil burn with him in the lake of fire.

Revelation 20:15 If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. I highly doubt if Satan name is written in that book.. that is unless God calls him back while the rest of us burn.

I don't think the New Testament needs to say that Satan is working for God. It seems pretty clear that this is the case throughout the Hebrew Bible, and since the earliest Christians (1st Century AD) didn't have a "New Testament" to work with, all they had was the Hebrew scriptures. Christians take (or at least should take) the New Testament and Old Testament as a complete package - not just rely on the latter and ignore the Old Testament.

I highly doubt any of God's angels' names are written in the Book of Life. Judgement Day is for humans, not for the angels. Though since you mention the lake of fire, where does it say that this lake of fire is burning torment? Revelation 20 actually describes the lake of fire as "the second death" (verse 14). It does not describe it as "the place of eternal pain and screaming and agony and torture and pineapples". If your name isn't in the Book of Life, you're simply going to get "the second death".

~ PA

[norwood1026]

I don't think the New Testament needs to say that Satan is working for God. It seems pretty clear that this is the case throughout the Hebrew Bible, and since the earliest Christians (1st Century AD) didn't have a "New Testament" to work with, all they had was the Hebrew scriptures. Christians take (or at least should take) the New Testament and Old Testament as a complete package - not just rely on the latter and ignore the Old Testament.

I still believe that the OT & the NT are two very different bible & two different faiths.

I highly doubt any of God's angels' names are written in the Book of Life. Judgement Day is for humans, not for the angels. Though since you mention the lake of fire, where does it say that this lake of fire is burning torment? Revelation 20 actually describes the lake of fire as "the second death" (verse 14). It does not describe it as "the place of eternal pain and screaming and agony and torture and pineapples". If your name isn't in the Book of Life, you're simply going to get "the second death".

~ PA

I agree with you about the second life thing but according to that verse. The lake of fire is real. I think you're reaching on the lake of fire thing though. Lake of fire?? Sounds horrible if you ask me.

Edited March 23, 2010 by norwood1026

[+Link of Hyrule]

I still believe that the OT & the NT are two very different bible & two different faiths.

Orthodox Jews would agree with you. As a Christian, I cannot agree. I am unable to fathom my beliefs without the input of the Tanakh (what we Christians call the "Old Testament"). To me, my Faith would not make any sense without the Old Testament! The Old Testament is a fundamental part of my beliefs - if it wasn't included, it wouldn't be a fair reflection of my Faith!

I agree with you about the second life thing but according to that verse. The lake of fire is real. I think you're reaching on the lake of fire thing though. Lake of fire?? Sounds horrible if you ask me.

Oh, the lake of fire is very possibly real (I won't say it is "definitely real" since such concepts are very hard to categorically state). But why does "Lake of Fire = eternal torment" make sense? To me it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The lake of fire may sound horrible, but as far as I can see it's really just another way of saying "You're dead - *bang bang*" - fundamentally no different to how atheists believe that the end is the end, when you're dead you're dead, and the dead know nothing - "you're dead - *bang bang*")

~ Regards, PA

Edited March 23, 2010 by Paranoid Android

[norwood1026]

Oh, the lake of fire is very possibly real (I won't say it is "definitely real" since such concepts are very hard to categorically state). But why does "Lake of Fire = eternal torment" make sense? To me it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The lake of fire may sound horrible, but as far as I can see it's really just another way of saying "You're dead - *bang bang*" - fundamentally no different to how atheists believe that the end is the end, when you're dead you're dead, and the dead know nothing - "you're dead - *bang bang*")

~ Regards, PA

If Christians are right then I guess we'll find out one day. You made a statement asking why would God punish the angels? I would think because they tried to overthrow God If God didn't punish them what right does he have to punish the rest of us?.

[+Link of Hyrule]

If Christians are right then I guess we'll find out one day. You made a statement asking why would God punish the angels? I would think because they tried to overthrow God If God didn't punish them what right does he have to punish the rest of us?.

Ahh, but what evidence is there that the angels tried to overthrow God? Methinks you are falling back on the spurious interpretation of Revelation 12 which I referenced in an earlier post.

Honestly ask yourself - on what basis do you get the opinion that there was a bunch of rebellious angels who rose up against God. Is this just a popular belief you have held without questioning where it came from. Or do you have a Bible quote (chapter/verse) to support it. As far as I'm aware, Revelation 12 is the only place that comes anywhere even close, and I can explain this in great detail to show that there was no "war in heaven" and there were no "rebellious angels".

Of course, this leaves the question open as to what exact are "demons". But it is my assertion that this question goes beyond the scope of the Bible.

~ Regards, PA

[norwood1026]

Ahh, but what evidence is there that the angels tried to overthrow God? Methinks you are falling back on the spurious interpretation of Revelation 12 which I referenced in an earlier post.

Was not Satan an angel? Didn'the have many others who followed him to earth when he was cast out of heaven?

Honestly ask yourself - on what basis do you get the opinion that there was a bunch of rebellious angels who rose up against God. Is this just a popular belief you have held without questioning where it came from. Or do you have a Bible quote (chapter/verse) to support it. As far as I'm aware, Revelation 12 is the only place that comes anywhere even close, and I can explain this in great detail to show that there was no "war in heaven" and there were no "rebellious angels".

I'll get back to you on this.

Of course, this leaves the question open as to what exact are "demons". But it is my assertion that this question goes beyond the scope of the Bible.

I agree with you on that point. Unless you want to debate that Eve was not the first women....

[+Link of Hyrule]

Was not Satan an angel? Didn'the have many others who followed him to earth when he was cast out of heaven?

Satan was an angel, but nothing in the Bible ever says that he was cast out, with or without any followers - as noted, there is one section in Revelation 12, but it is my assertion that to suggest this passage means that Satan was cast out of heaven with x number of other angels is highly questionable.

I'll get back to you on this.

No worries. You would be well served to start with Revelation 12 (which from my reading is the only place that refers to anyone being cast out of heaven). But you'll have to also read Revelation 13 and Revelation 17 to get a complete picture of the seven-headed, ten-horned dragon/serpent.

I agree with you on that point. Unless you want to debate that Eve was not the first women....

I'm not sure I understand your point. I was simply pointing out that the origins of angels, demons, and other types of spirits are unknown - all we can ascertain is that God created them. What they are and how they exist is not something that is detailed in the Bible (that I can see, at least).

~ Regards, PA

Edited March 24, 2010 by Paranoid Android

[Mr Walker]

This is one the worst interpretations of Job that I've ever read. To assert that [G-d] is not omniscient is flat-out wrong. The Ramban explains that the tests of the righteous are always for their own benefit. [G-d] certainly knows that they will succeed, thus he tests them to allow them to actualize their own potential. The reward for good intent is not nearly as great as the reward for good deed. The purpose of man is to bring sanctity from his inner being into the physical world. This requires him to translate intent into deed.

So you see that god acts as if he is not omniscient or omnipotent and you choose to believe this is an act.

Why?

Why not assume that god is as god does. Not that he is as other people who observed him described him to be? Why believe the writers got it right and god is puttng on an act?

"My" interpretation of job is quite common and accepted one. It includes the perspective not jus t of the jewish writers of the bible but of the events and writings of the new testament. Christianity is an amalgam of jewish faith, christs teachings, the revelations to paul and even of the book of revelations. (and thats without the alterations imposed via roman catholicism on the biblical form of christianity.)

And if all this was not true, a person must relate to god as god appears to him. One is wrong to relate to god according to written scripture alone, because that puts more faith in the interpretations of others than it does in your own experiences with god.

So god is not st a christian god. (or a jewish god) Christian writers present one perspective on god. But god is as he is, not as theological writers interpret him. And the physical evidence is that god is not, and cannot be given his physical nature, either omniscient or omnipotent.

That would contravene; the nature of god , the nature of humanity and the nature of the relationship which exists between god and man.

Of course my interpretation of job may not be the same as rabbi nachmans. It would be suprising if it were so. He interpreted god as best he could in his time and era but that does not mean he could see the elephant any better than the rest of us blind men.

i see through christian eyes with the hindsight of christ and other developments, along with personal experience of god, whereas i would assume he wrote from a particular jewish perspective of how god is.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Mr Walker

[Enigmatic Annasawzi]

Hmmm, because Christians, gave us choices, to choose a side to which we stand, also as a test, to see which you choose, and weed out the believers from the enemies. Oh, and the enemies were pretty much always killed, source, Inquistion of Europe.

EA

[mklsgl]

So you see that god acts as if he is not omniscient or omnipotent and you choose to believe this is an act.

Why?

Why not assume that god is as god does. Not that he is as other people who observed him described him to be? Why believe the writers got it right and god is puttng on an act?

"My" interpretation of job is quite common and accepted one. It includes the perspective not jus t of the jewish writers of the bible but of the events and writings of the new testament. Christianity is an amalgam of jewish faith, christs teachings, the revelations to paul and even of the book of revelations. (and thats without the alterations imposed via roman catholicism on the biblical form of christianity.)

And if all this was not true, a person must relate to god as god appears to him. One is wrong to relate to god according to written scripture alone, because that puts more faith in the interpretations of others than it does in your own experiences with god.

So god is not st a christian god. (or a jewish god) Christian writers present one perspective on god. But god is as he is, not as theological writers interpret him. And the physical evidence is that god is not, and cannot be given his physical nature, either omniscient or omnipotent.

That would contravene; the nature of god , the nature of humanity and the nature of the relationship which exists between god and man.

Of course my interpretation of job may not be the same as rabbi nachmans. It would be suprising if it were so. He interpreted god as best he could in his time and era but that does not mean he could see the elephant any better than the rest of us blind men.

i see through christian eyes with the hindsight of christ and other developments, along with personal experience of god, whereas i would assume he wrote from a particular jewish perspective of how god is.

Do you not know the Talmud or anything about literary theory, seriously? Please show where [G-d] is not omniscient, omnipotent, omni-All Things in Job? Please evidence one Jewish scholar whose interpretations parallel your own.

How do you infer that [G-d] is "putting on an act?"

[G-d] in Job is the Jewish [G-d]; the storyteller of Job was a Jew addressing a Jewish audience.

What would cause you to disbelieve the storyteller?

What does the NT have anything to do with Job?

[Mr Walker]

Do you not know the Talmud or anything about literary theory, seriously? Please show where [G-d] is not omniscient, omnipotent, omni-All Things in Job? Please evidence one Jewish scholar whose interpretations parallel your own.

How do you infer that [G-d] is "putting on an act?"

[G-d] in Job is the Jewish [G-d]; the storyteller of Job was a Jew addressing a Jewish audience.

What would cause you to disbelieve the storyteller?

What does the NT have anything to do with Job?

Because i am not limited to a perspective or a chrisian or other perspective. i camr to god(or god came to me through personal expereince and revelation. I have trust in that. I appreciate that many people from many eras and cultures have similar expereinces upon which they construct their concept of god Many have absolutley no persoanl expereince with god and thus legitimately create or adopt a philosophical/theological construct.

The early jewish peoples apparently had real contacts with god. But that does not mean they understood or interpreted him "corectly," totally, or infallibly.

It does not mean i do either, but i trust my own experiences and observations as to the nature of god more than those of peole i can only read about.

I have gre t respec tfor much of the jewish faith especially many of the laws god passed down to them for life in the culture of their times. Many of those still apply in a modern post industrial society.

I have also learned much from christs ministry, as to how to connect to god and live a life of fullness . It helps me to improve myself and the world around me.

But i also see value in buddhism shikism islam and gaeisms and even in animist or druidic philosophies. In fact in anything which both helps a person connect to god, and improves the physical quality of life for all on earth.

So no, i dont see the talmud as the be all and end all of authority on the christian god or on god per se.

It was you who said that god Is testing people without their full realisation of this.

The Ramban explains that the tests of the righteous are always for their own benefit. [G-d] certainly knows that they will succeed, thus he tests them to allow them to actualize their own potential.

In other words god is not being completely honest or sincere.

If they are going to succeed or fail then there is no test at all And if we know our fates are preordained then we are also aware there is no test at all. JOb did not know he was being tested by satan or that god had withdrawn his protection but he had faith in god. Job might have succumbed to satan and the outcome would have beendifferetn but god had faith in job He did not know before he started the outcome of the test. (otherwise it had no validation to an yof the participants or observers involved) But god did have good knowledge of jobs heart and mind and thus there was a high probability that job would remain faithful .

Pu tsimply a test where the rwesult is preordained is pointless and demonstrates nothing of any use. A person aware of/ believing in this, cannot even learn from the experience or test becuase he KNOWS tha t, however he acts, it will not affect any outcome or future.

This is not my experience with god.

He is a teacher and role model. He is honest, open, and what you see is what you get, although he has a cosmic and non human sense of humour at times. (if it is humour) He is trying to help humans move through to a position where their spiritual wisdom matches their physical/material wisdom and thus help us to survive our own evolution.

And when i, or a modern non jewish reader reads job they not only read the "plain english" of the text They bring to it a cultural and historicla perspective which is not the same as a jewish one from either 3000 years ago, or even from today. For example the realtionship between man and god in job , to a modern reader must be different to an early jewish reader We have the contextaul realtionship of christ and the rest of the new testament to influence our interpretation.

But job to me very simply illustrates that god did not know where satan was or what he was doing. To believe otherwise rquires overlaying prexisting belief about the omniscience of god and creating a reason to explain why god did not know this.

This confirms the plain english understanding that, for satan to rebel and take a third ogf the angels with him, god could not have known of his plans. This was a major war across the heavens. An omniscient god would have prevented it from happening.

Likewise if god is a real sapient being, then unless he interferes in the free will of other beings he cannot KNOW what they will do. Im not denying tha tgod does not on occasions interfere in that free will but he does so to alter a future which would otherwise come about Again if the future is fixed this would be unnecessary, if not physically impossible without unresolvable temporal contradictions.

The future is not created until we arrive at it. It simply does not exist And thus god may accurately extrapolate events and act to make them happen, but where other sapient beings are involved, he cant know them.

And if ihe knows that they are fixed then why does he go to so much effort to change them in the lives of individuals and of mankind. We can philosophise many reasons for this but they dont meet the simple observable facts about how god acts.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Mr Walker