Anat

No, they are both acting towards the same purpose: conducting a pseudo-scientific experiment regarding Job's attitude towards God. The satan has permission to change a variable. The two scientists offer conflicting hypotheses about the results, but both leave the subject the free will to act one way or the other.

Avatar

Either way, the responsability of the entire concept of evil falls back onto God. Either he was so incompetent that he created a being that would turn on him, or he simply delegated the problem of evil to his obedient subordinate.

Wallener

This assumes you even have a absolute definition of evil. I, personally, do not.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

But it appears that God didn't actually tell Satan to afflict Job, "He is in your hands," we read here…

How can we say that the devil's intent was the same as God's intent, though? It seems they are quite different, "He will curse you to your face," said the devil, now surely God did not intend this.

So then still the purposes are different, even though the test is agreed on! God has to have had a purpose for Job to maintain his integrity under this pressure from the devil...

God has ultimate responsibility here, yes, I agree, and Job does as well:

Job 1:21 "The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised."

"Praised," because the Lord had a good purpose:

Job 23:10 When he has tested me, I will come forth as gold.

Now he had some difficulty holding onto this! But I think he did finish up believing this...

Regards,
Lee

Anat

I don't see how having a hypothesis about the results of an experiment means a result confirming the hypothesis is the purpose. The purpose is to know what the answer turns out to be. (Maybe I spent too much time in science labs)

You noted that God did not tell the satan what to do with Job, but note also that the satan did not act before permission was granted to him, and also that the escalation to the next level (attacking Job's health) happened following explicit permission from God.

John A. Broussard

If someone has ultimate responsibility, it means no one else does.

It's very difficult to discuss anything with someone who ignores the meaning of words.

I have no quarrel with a different definition of a word, I just want to know before hand what the word means to you if you are using it differently.

It would also help to clear up your own thinking for your own benefit if you gave thought to the meaning of the words you use.

Wallener

I didn't. G-d's intent is to test Job. Satan's intent is to obey G-d. Both succeed.

Wallener

Better translation: "All that he has is in your power..."

Satan cannot do anything until G-d specifically gives Job over to him.

"...only do not lay a hand on him."

G-d adds a restriction to Satan. And Satan, being the loyal servant he is, did as G-d requested.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Yet two scientists can conduct one experiment, each with a purpose to prove his own theory. But I actually hold that God knows the future, and thus was not wondering…

Yes, I agree that the devil was under God's control, yet the devil was still trying to thwart God.

The devil couldn't be accountable for his intent? Bill trips me up, and protests it was an accident, my anger subsides. Bill just wants to trip me up, and does nothing else, and I will be upset.

Well, I don't think the devil really intends utmost obedience! Didn't the devil break the commandment "do not kill"?

I don't expect that trying to get someone to curse God is an indication of loyalty to God, though!

Regards,
Lee

Wallener

That's right. Which is why, throughout the texts, Satan obeys G-d to the letter. No intent to disobey, and no disobedience.

The 10 Sayings are for humans, not angels. Angels kill - when directly ordered to do so by G-d. For example, in Egypt.

Sure it is - if G-d says to do it. Not doing it would have been the sign of disobediance.