The book of Job and fair weather friends

[Lark]

I have been reflecting on the Book of Job lately, God believes Job is good and Satan, not a renegade but an angel in this tale, suggests that this is only because God is good to him, so God permits Job to be afflicted with suffering by Satan, Job is still faithful, then Satan says well you didnt allow me to hurt him directly, then Satan is permitted to hurt him directly and while Job questions he remains faithful. God is finally angry at what Satan has led him to permit to happen to his follower.

Now, its a bit surprising to see a story in which God is "duped" by Satan and I know that there's more than one source which suggests it is an allegorical story.

However what I think is the best aspect of the story altogether is the idea that Job is not a "Fair Weather Friend", I dont know if there are that many people who I know what will stick with others when the going gets as tough as described in that particular story, with anyone, let alone their relationship with God. Its not false modesty to include myself in that camp either.

What does anyone else think?

 

[Totenkindly]

Job's ultimate commitment was to God.
Which is more than anyone else in the story (including his friends or his wife) was committed to him or to God.

So he chose to believe even when it made no sense to believe.

I tend to frame the story in terms of faith.

EDIT: Do you have an actual reference in regards to your assertion that "God was angry with Satan" [playing the role of "prosecuting attorney" in this story] or that God was somehow "duped"? I didn't remember ever reading that, the last chapter says nothing about it, and I'm curious if I just missed a reference elsewhere. Thanks.

 

[Beargryllz]

The story of Job makes God and Satan look like total assholes

Some of my friends are assholes, but I put up with it anyway

So, I guess, God could still potentially be an ally, if you have shitty friends

 

[Randomnity]

the moral I got from the story is that god was ok with hurting someone innocent to win a bet.

I also think it'd be dumb to stick with a friend who intentionally hurts you to boost his ego, so in that sense I suppose it does apply to the fair weather friends idea, very roughly. I tend to imagine "fair weather friends" to be leaving for trivial reasons, though.

 

[KDude]

the moral I got from the story is that god was ok with hurting someone innocent to win a bet.

It's said that it might predate all other books in the bible as well.

Which is to say, it's primitive.

I mean, this was like.. before the invention of air conditioning. And toilet paper! Everyone was miserable. Including God. That's the main lesson I get out of the book of Job.

 

[Aquarelle]

I like to think I am someone who will stick with a true friend through thick and thin. But I'm not sure the comparison with the story of Job really applies to friendship. God was testing Job's faith and devotion by allowing bad things to happen to him when He could have stopped them. If my friend had to power to stop/prevent bad things happening to me, but declined to do so, I'm not sure whether I could call them a true friend. Same if the friend was treating me like crap. I would certainly talk to them about it first, but if they continued to treat me like crap, again, I'd have to reevaluate my assessment of them as a "true friend." It's a two-way street when it comes to friendship between two mortals... devotion to one's God is a different thing.

 

[KDude]

I think a true friend of God would stop listening to primitive people, not be afraid to reevaluate what his nature could be, and not reduce a deity to some of humanity's most base representations. It was something all primitive cultures did. No different than Zeus shagging married women and hurling lightning bolts at their angry husbands.

 

[tinker683]

I like to think I am someone who will stick with a true friend through thick and thin. But I'm not sure the comparison with the story of Job really applies to friendship. God was testing Job's faith and devotion by allowing bad things to happen to him when He could have stopped them. If my friend had to power to stop/prevent bad things happening to me, but declined to do so, I'm not sure whether I could call them a true friend. Same if the friend was treating me like crap. I would certainly talk to them about it first, but if they continued to treat me like crap, again, I'd have to reevaluate my assessment of them as a "true friend." It's a two-way street when it comes to friendship between two mortals... devotion to one's God is a different thing.

This, especially the bolded.

I'll answer the OP's question regarding fair weather friends with a short story of my own pertaining to this exact situation.

*ahem*

For the past several years a good friend of mine has found himself in situations in which he has no money, no job, and needs to rely on his friends for support.

Well, A few years or so ago said friend of mine that I hadn't seen in years at this point contacted me as he was going through a really touch patch: His wife threw him out, he lost his job, basically had no where to go. I convinced my parents (whom I was living with at the time) to open up the spare bedroom for him. His wife has been abusive toward him for many years at this point so when I first took him in, he was pretty much a shell of himself.

So, for months, I basically helped him rediscover himself and reestablish some firm footing. He finds a job at a restaurant, reconnects with some of his hobbies that his ex-wife denied him, and he basically comes back out of his shell. He eventually met another woman and they both went off to Virginia together.

Fast forward to sometime earlier this year. I get in touch with said friend again, the relationship with his other lady friend has dissolved and once again he has no job and no money. I'm living alone now and have no place to shack him up at my place so he moves in with some friends of ours. Finds another job at a restaurant, resettles a bit.

Well, THOSE friends move out on him and he is *once again* in the same situation. Now I'm living with two other people and am paying a lot more in rent and living expenses than I was before and he's constantly asking me for money to help support him but I simply can't. He's also borrowed money from other friends of mine but he hasn't paid of them back and they're basically fed up with supporting someone who seems to be consistently finding himself in a bad situation.

Now, does this make me a fair weather friend that I've cut off support for him? Perhaps it has, but I do think it's important to wonder at what point is a friend of ours really a friend? If a person continues to make bad decisions, at what point in time can we justifiably say, "Ok, I need to get away form this person because now they're just exploiting me?"

This is a very pertinent question to me as I'm the type of person that gets taken advantage of easily.

 

[KDude]

This is a very pertinent question to me as I'm the type of person that gets taken advantage of easily.

Just like I say with people who need to question old concepts of God, you should question what friend even means. The original post almost seems to assume friendship with God is a one way street, and questioning it's boundaries is merely being a "fair weather friend". It's slavish. Friendships go two ways.

You sound like a good person, but you've limited yourself with your own definition of friendship. To you, friendship (I'm assuming) is being generous, providing help/service, etc.. That's very cool, but maybe you should include questioning and challenging, as other expressions of friendship. Otherwise, you risk being an enabler of bullshit. You can still keep your friend and beat him across the head. Win, win.

 

[Totenkindly]

You sound like a good person, but you've limited yourself with your own definition of friendship. To you, friendship (I'm assuming) is being generous, providing help/service, etc.. That's very cool, but maybe you should include questioning and challenging, as other expressions of friendship. Otherwise, you risk being an enabler of bullshit. You can still keep your friend and beat him across the head. Win, win.

That's a good point.

Obviously it has to be done in a way where there's still respect and trust (since we don't typically let ourselves get clobbered by people whose motives we are suspect of), but I would say that my closest friends on occasion have told me things I didn't want to hear, in their role of friend, whether or not I ended up agreeing with them, and that is one role that friends play.

How's that fit in here?

(But just to step back into the broad scope for a second, I think trying to define human roles for what has been set up as a divine/human relationship here is always going to be faulty. I mean, really; if we're accepting that a mortal individual of limited perpsective is relating to an omniscient, omnipotent deity, the roles described might be suggestive but not literal. I mean, how could we be "friends"? Or "lovers"? Or anything similar? We can't exactly map out such a relationship based simply on our experience with human relationship. It's almost like taking a hamster or a woolly caterpillar to a social party and saying, "hey, here's Mr. Fluffers, we're close friends.")

 

[Spurgeon]

It's a two-way street when it comes to friendship between two mortals... devotion to one's God is a different thing.

Yes, this is something that many otherwise brilliant minds just can't seem to comprehend.

Human beings are not equal to God. God is the sovereign Creator and Sustainer of all things in existence.

So many misunderstandings about the Bible, particularly those involving God's supposed morality or immorality (as if human beings can or should put God on trial!) could be cleared up by understanding this most basic principle:

God > human

Job understood this. He realized his position as a weak and sinful human being in relation to a holy and perfect God.
He was to humbly submit to God under all circumstances, no matter how much it conflicted with his own desires, pride, etc.

That is wisdom.

 

[KDude]

(But just to step back into the broad scope for a second, I think trying to define human roles for what has been set up as a divine/human relationship here is always going to be faulty. I mean, really; if we're accepting that a mortal individual of limited perpsective is relating to an omniscient, omnipotent deity, the roles described might be suggestive but not literal. I mean, how could we be "friends"? Or "lovers"? Or anything similar? We can't exactly map out such a relationship based simply on our experience with human relationship. It's almost like taking a hamster or a woolly caterpillar to a social party and saying, "hey, here's Mr. Fluffers, we're close friends.")

Well, sticking with the Book of Job theme, this is exactly what Job ends up asking for. And he realizes his problem. There are a few passages where he says he needs a mediator (hebrew "go'el".. someone who would advocate or even carry out vengeance for victims) to defend himself before God. And yet, he thinks the only one qualified is God. So it goes in circles. The book is Jewish in origin, but Christians ran with this idea later. They said that Jesus was someone who could both understand humanity and understand the mind of God at the same time. The idea of a one way friendship and servitude (on the part of humans) is actually the anthesis of the Christian ideal. They believe their God understood the problem and took on flesh himself. If he wanted to simply condemn "fair weather" friends, they would have never taken their doctrine this far.

But this is probably all beside the point.

 

[Qlip]

Yeah, that is a kind of jerky story if you believe it literally, and also one of the reasons that I'm not a fundamentalist (or a Christian). The story may have some very good points metaphorically, in the spirit that it was actually written; I've never studied it from that angle. What's interesting is that its original writers didn't believe in an opposing and independent evil power, so Satan was mostly just taking the other side because it was his appointed job.

 

[KDude]

Yeah, that is a kind of jerky story if you believe it literally, and also one of the reasons that I'm not a fundamentalist (or a Christian). The story may have some very good points metaphorically, in the spirit that it was actually written; I've never studied it from that angle. What's interesting is that its original writers didn't believe in an opposing and independent evil power, so Satan was mostly just taking the other side because it was his appointed job.

Yeah, that's interesting. "Satan" originally just meant "accuser". And it's used often, not as a proper title, but for accusers in general. In this case, some member of the divine council who brought issues into question. He almost sounds like a shady comical character. While the Angel of Death (another shady servant of the divine) was more like his destructive counterpart.

When the scriptures were first translated into Greek, the word satan became diabolos (slanderer). Already taking on an even more negative meaning (assuming slander has different motivations than simply accusing). Somewhere along the line, the definition grew even more sinister. There were other evil-like characters in the Bible besides Satan at one point ("Beelzebub", for example.. a Phillistine god), but they converged into the same person.

 

[Spurgeon]

... Satan was mostly just taking the other side because it was his appointed job.

This is true.

God, in His infinite wisdom, has allowed Satan to operate in this world--but only within the boundaries God has set for him.

• Unbelievers are in bondage to Satan
  
  
• Believers (like Job) can be tempted and tormented by Satan, but have been set free from bondage to him.

Those are the parameters God has set, and because Satan knows his time and power is limited, he goes about doing as much damage as possible.

 

[Lark]

I like to think I am someone who will stick with a true friend through thick and thin. But I'm not sure the comparison with the story of Job really applies to friendship. God was testing Job's faith and devotion by allowing bad things to happen to him when He could have stopped them. If my friend had to power to stop/prevent bad things happening to me, but declined to do so, I'm not sure whether I could call them a true friend. Same if the friend was treating me like crap. I would certainly talk to them about it first, but if they continued to treat me like crap, again, I'd have to reevaluate my assessment of them as a "true friend." It's a two-way street when it comes to friendship between two mortals... devotion to one's God is a different thing.

Perhaps. I know that God appears angry for allowing himself to have been drawn into such a game. At least in the telling of the story that I'm familiar with. There is a rabbinical saying apparently that if it hadnt been written it could be true, so it is one of those accounts which seems baffling or perhaps anthropomorphic.

Although I've known or seen social groups which act like this, I'd mention mean girls but its not a perfect analogy, in fact its a bad one but I cant think of movies which have looked at it with any sort of depth beyond that one and it deals in humourous stereotyping too.

Anyway, I have known people who've solicited the opinions of a friend about an other friend, only for their original opinion to have been changed without them thinking the proffered opinion would have been enough to do it. Its not perfect making comparisons between the human and divine, I take that point and know what you mean.

 

[Qlip]

This is true.

God, in His infinite wisdom, has allowed Satan to operate in this world--but only within the boundaries God has set for him.

• Unbelievers are in bondage to Satan
  
  
• Believers (like Job) can be tempted and tormented by Satan, but have been set free from bondage to him.

Those are the parameters God has set, and because Satan knows his time and power is limited, he goes about doing as much damage as possible.

I was talking about Jewish belief, which is not the same, even though they share the same book. Satan would be an angel and not a fallen one. Them dudes picked monotheism and stuck with it. Only later did shades of Zorastrianism sneak in, the idea that there was an evil power working against a good power on equal footing.

 

[Spurgeon]

I was talking about Jewish belief, which is not the same, even though they share the same book. Satan would be an angel and not a fallen one. Them dudes picked monotheism and stuck with it. Only later did shades of Zorastrianism sneak in, the idea that there was an evil power working against a good power on equal footing.

The Bible does claim that God and Satan are working against each other, but it doesn't claim that God and Satan are on equal footing at all. Far from it. God's reign is absolutely secure.

Again, God has set parameters for Satan, and so he is ultimately serving God.

Satan is such a fool and God is so wise that Satan is unwittingly serving God's ultimate purposes--the ultimate example being the murder of Christ, which was meant by Satan for evil, but was, in fact, God's most gracious act toward humanity.

If you understand God's sovereign authority over everything in existence, then Job and everything else in the Bible makes sense.

 

[Qlip]

The Bible does claim that God and Satan are working against each other, but it doesn't claim that God and Satan are on equal footing at all. Far from it. God's reign is absolutely secure.

Again, God has set parameters for Satan, and so he is ultimately serving God.

Satan is such a fool and God is so wise that Satan is unwittingly serving God's ultimate purposes--the ultimate example being the murder of Christ, which was meant by Satan for evil, but was, in fact, God's most gracious act toward humanity.

If you understand God's sovereign authority over everything in existence, then Job and everything else in the Bible makes sense.

Nope. If you read the Bible plainly, it doesn't explain why it's right for God to be a bigger ass to Job than I should be to my kids.

 

[Sniffles]

Am I the only person who finds it amusing how the ending of Job is consistently ommitted in discussions whinning about its content?