Christians: What in this Book do you Disagree With?

[Francine]

The reality was that God had his own plan for Job and was able to make his walk with God stronger than it was before.

Nice God, making Job's servants and children perish so he could make Job's walk with God (which wasn't too shabby to begin with) stronger than it was before.

 

[Scott C.]

Yes, I do. But I also believe that God knows our hearts better than we do.

You cannot believe that wealth and comfort are evidences of faith. They most certainly are not! In fact, success in general has absolutely nothing to do with God. Take Jeremiah: he prophecied and prophecied. He ended up in a pit! And no one listened to him. In fact, nothing good ever came of his efforts, except as a sign of Israel's ignorance.

Jeremiah might have considered his life a failure, but he was always following in the Spirit.

In Job, Elihu comforts with the words "if you sin on earth, how does it affect God?" The truth is, God is the Holy Spirit, and our actions and choices have no influence on it. We can only choose to accept it or follow our own path.

I agree with everything you said except the second to the last sentence. I just think you must believe what I'm trying to say and maybe I'm not saying it right. Let me ask another way. Let's say you're going to give a sermon tomorrow and you want to be inspired to say what God wants you to say. In this example, let's assume that there is something indeed that God wills that you say to the congregation. I believe that if you (well you wouldn't do this) go out and get drunk the night before, corrupt yourself with silly women, curse the name of God and then show up for the sermon - the odds that God will put his words in your mouth are much less than if you had spent the night in contemplative prayer and otherwise making good choices. In either case, it always must be God's will. If you did everything right and received no inspiration, then that was God's will. Still say behavior, heart, and faith do not positively affect the inspiration level?

 

[tomspug]

Ah, I see. Well, I think what I meant whhen I said that our actions and choices have no influence on the Holy Spirit, I meant that the Holy Spirit is a 'gift'. So by going out and drinking the night before a sermon, I think that qualifies as 'refusing' the gift.

In this sample scenario, the pastor decides, maybe I should go out tonight. The Holy Spirit would have prompted him (this is all theoretical, God may WANT the pastor to meet someone at the bar!) not to go. If he denied that, then that choice, yes, would affect him. But it does not affect the 'power' of the Holy Spirit, merely the relationship between the Holy Spirit (God) and the person. The man can say "I have weakened the power of the Holy Spirit by my actions!" but it would not be true. It is only man that is weak, which is why having a weak spiritual leader is dangerous. It can give people the impression that because a holy man is weak, then God has weaknesses as well.

 

[tomspug]

Nice God, making Job's servants and children perish so he could make Job's walk with God (which wasn't too shabby to begin with) stronger than it was before.

Francine, you still don't get it. GOD didn't make Job's servants and children perish. It was Satan! God allowed it, yes, but we also have to remember that this is a STORY not HISTORY. We don't really know the HOW between Satan and God, but we do know this: that God let's bad things happen to good people. If you can't deal with that, then find a 'nicer' religion. Christianity is a religion that acknowledges sin as being 'man's fault'.

Christianity also believes in a just God, so for God to simply 'make everything better' is actually a God of chaos. Would you rather have a chaotic God that changes his mind however it pleases him?

Going back to Job, it is THROUGH struggling with the sin we have created that we become closer to God, or 'like God' (sidenote: not become AS God). Otherwise, our ignorance will only keep us distant from Him. The moral of Job is not that he was punished at all, but the fact that he struggled with God was because he did not understand God. Job was a righteous man and thought he should understand everything, but in the end he realizes that he cannot understand everything. There are some times that we HAVE to rely on God, not on our own knowledge and wisdom and comforts. It teaches us our mortality and the frailty of worldly things. It is a fantastic book, and if you'd like to discuss it more, I have already created a thread on it in Biblical Discussion.

 

[Francine]

Francine, you still don't get it. GOD didn't make Job's servants and children perish. It was Satan!

Sonny Corleone didn't make Paulie Gatto perish. It was Clemenza! "Leave the gun, take the canoli." Yeah, that's it Senator, the Family's got lots of buffers.

 

[tomspug]

I guess that analogy works if you want to bring God down to human level. Are you implying that God can sin? Do you think that God gives into temptation when he allows humans to suffer? Do you think he in any way allows sin to exist for HIS OWN benefit? What exactly are you trying to imply?

 

[Scott C.]

Ah, I see. Well, I think what I meant whhen I said that our actions and choices have no influence on the Holy Spirit, I meant that the Holy Spirit is a 'gift'. So by going out and drinking the night before a sermon, I think that qualifies as 'refusing' the gift.

In this sample scenario, the pastor decides, maybe I should go out tonight. The Holy Spirit would have prompted him (this is all theoretical, God may WANT the pastor to meet someone at the bar!) not to go. If he denied that, then that choice, yes, would affect him. But it does not affect the 'power' of the Holy Spirit, merely the relationship between the Holy Spirit (God) and the person. The man can say "I have weakened the power of the Holy Spirit by my actions!" but it would not be true. It is only man that is weak, which is why having a weak spiritual leader is dangerous. It can give people the impression that because a holy man is weak, then God has weaknesses as well.

Ok, we're in agreement.:yes:

 

[tomspug]

That's what I thought. ;-) Always nice to discuss instead of debate.

 

[Scott C.]

That's what I thought. ;-) Always nice to discuss instead of debate.

Indeed.