Could one boycott or Occupy heaven?

Originally posted by halfoldman
Job questioned God, and was told that the clay has no right to question the potter.
So politically it's a fascist God dictatorship.

Job questioned God and God was defended by his friends, though inadequately.

Eventually, God himself came forward and answered Job, to Job's satisfaction.

The moral then in my opinion is to question God until he comes forward himself to answer.

You may not like the answer, but at least you will have met God and through that found peace.

Originally posted by halfoldman
On the other hand Job's rightful indignations do eventually have an effect.
God gives him a new family and ends His bet with His pal Lucifer (although Job doesn't get the old one back, but that doesn't bother Job much).

From a literary sense it does seem that God's character develops in his relationship with men.
He punishes like a jealous husband when they stray, but backtracks just as they get close to abandoning all hope in Him.
So in that sense, perhaps there is a possibility that protests might help.

Job's mistake in the whole affair was in separating himself from God in his suffering and separating himself from God in his righteousness. This was the early understanding of the relationship between man and God.

Had he had Jesus for a teacher he would have learned that God is within us all and therefore suffers as we suffer and all righteousness is due him.

Know thyself. It is all one can ever truly know.

Job never separates himself from God, nor does he apostate or become an unbeliever, instead he verbally harangues God.
Job did no wrong, he was God's most loyal follower.
His suffering was simply because God made a kind of bet with Satan, who told God that it's easy for Job to be a great devotee as long as his life is good, but that he would surely curse God if he was made to believe that God removed all his blessings (although Satan wasn't allowed to kill him).

In the case of Job Satan lost the wager, but Job certainly had his say, and in my reading it did affect God, who speaks from the clouds to Job and his friends, referring to the difficulties of his position as God (which was rather misleading since it still left Job in the dark for the actual reasons for his suffering, which God never explains).
It made the narcissistic "great dictator" reflect upon Himself, and he responds with a mixture of might and almost an appeal to have empathy with Him!

According to the Niacene Creed (still held as true by mainstream Christianity today) Jesus and God were part of a Trinity since creation, and Jesus was a part of the Godhead that spoke to Job.

Originally posted by halfoldman
Job never separates himself from God, nor does he apostate or become an unbeliever, instead he verbally harangues God.

Indeed he does for it was the understanding at the time that God and Man were separate images. When God finally shows up, he comes in a whirlwind, not from within Job.

Originally posted by halfoldman
Job did no wrong, he was God's most loyal follower.

Job's wrong was in taking credit for his righteousness instead of giving his own righteousness to God.

Originally posted by halfoldman
His suffering was simply because God made a kind of bet with Lucifer, who told God that it's easy for Job to be a great devotee as long as his life is good, but that he would surely turn from God if Lucifer was allowed to curse him in all kinds of ways (although Lucifer wasn't allowed to kill him).

Satan actually. Again, this is how the understanding of God was before Jesus. Before him, God was separate from man. God cannot be separate AND Omnipresent at the same time. Jesus taught that the spirit of life is the common bond between God and Man.

Originally posted by halfoldman
In the case of Job Lucifer lost the wager, but Job certainly had his say, and in my reading it did affect God.
It made the "great dictator" reflect upon Himself.
According to the Niacene Creed still held as true by mainstream Christianity today, Jesus and God were part of a Trinity since creation, and Jesus was a part of the Godhead that spoke to Job.

While the book of Job contains a great moral lesson, it still comes up short when coming to understand Man's relationship with his creator. What Jesus taught was simple truth if you do not separate Jesus from yourself.

I am the Alpha and the Omega. You say it for it is truth. You are all you will ever know.
I and the father are one. You say it for it is truth. If there is an Omnipresent creator, it would have to be within you to be Omnipresent.
I am the way, the truth, and the life None come to the father but through me. You say it for it is truth. No one can get a complete picture of the creator without hearing your own personal testimony of it for it is within you as well as all others. We each are a piece of the whole.

When Job was written, this understanding of our relationship with the divine was not understood. Job was written for the understanding at that present.

Well, I don't recall seeing any fault or sin of Job in the narrative.
I could be wrong however.
What the narrative is mainly known for nowadays is a powerful and poetic debate on why the innocent or righteous must suffer, or The Problem of Evil.
It doesn't really provide an answer, but at least the conditions of Job (such as, eventually disease) are familiar to us all.
The fact is that God was not honest with Job, and almost kind of sheepish and guilty behind His show of might.
Only the reader, and not Job know of the wager.
Thus I do think Job elicited something from God, perhaps akin to the end of the flood story, where God promises never to do so again.

So from a literary perspective there is a character development in God, eventually leading to Christ.

Therefore, I'm not sure whether theology can be changed by human interaction with God.
Certainly some groups have a theology that God can be made to bring about the second coming if man fulfills certain things to pressure Him to do so.
I cannot say it's impossible to protest God, or force the hand of God.

Originally posted by halfoldman
Well, I don't recall seeing any fault or sin of Job in the narrative.
I could be wrong however.
What the narrative is mainly known for nowadays is a powerful and poetic debate on why the innocent or righteous must suffer, or The Problem of Evil.

On June first at the ripe old age of 38 I had a heart attack. I am not over weight, I do not have high cholesterol, I am physically fit and by the doctors own statements, the picture of health. However, I do have a genetic trait which causes members of my family to form blood clots easily.

I suppose I could curse God for such a defect, curse, even punishment. Instead, well before the heart attack I informed my family that I would be having one at an early age. They were prepared. When it occurred it felt as if someone had reached into my chest and was trying to pull my heart out through my rib cage.

Despite the excruciating pain, I laughed at the dilemma. Having nothing else in life but my life, it was the only thing I had left to loose, and if it was lost, I was content with it.

Having survived it and even more, being released from the hospital in three days with all my previous health (minus the wound from the stent placement left in my groin), I still see my life as belonging to the creator to fulfill his will whatever burdens he places upon me.

This is the difference between Job and I.

He was righteous for himself. I am not righteous. If any righteousness is ever found in me, it is merely what God has made me to do.

The creator is the only righteous party in this drama. The rest of us are his characters he uses to teach us of his righteousness.

reply to post by TheHolyGhost

I wish you a speedy recovery and all the best for your health.

Just to clarify, what do mean by "Job was righteous to himself"?

Do you mean he offered burnt offerings for himself (which was the prescribed custom), or do you mean he wanted to appear righteous as a form of self-aggrandizement, or something else completely?

Is it a quote or paraphrase from the book, or an interpretation?

Originally posted by halfoldman
do you mean he wanted to appear righteous as a form of self-aggrandizement, or something else completely?

The above is how I meant it and here is my reasoning.

If your father sets the rules of his house and you follow his rules perfectly, you will think yourself a good son and he would too. Why are you following his rules though? Is it because you agree that his rules are just or is it because he is the father and it is his house?

If you agree it is because the rules are just, then you will have no complaint if he suddenly decides to take your toys away. You may question why he decided to take your toys away, but you will not bring up how good you have been because the rules are self evidently just.

The first thing Job does when his toys are taken away is justify himself. Lord I have done this and that and all of this too! Why me oh lord!

He is righteous in his own mind and following rules regardless of if he can see their righteousness or not.

He is not good for the sake of being good, but good because that is what the rules say to do to be good.

Satans wager was based on the premise that Job was good because he was rewarded for being good.

Take away his rewards and he will turn, which he did.

Conversely, Jesus took up being good while suffering for being good, and would not even take credit for being good, but rather blamed the spirit of God which dwelt within him.

reply to post by halfoldman

I'd still think it's unfathomable to think of heaven as a place where sadness is felt for those who "chose another path". Forgiveness Jhill76, but that doesn't sound much like a heaven.

Not all feel sadness. I spoke to one who has gone back home. We spoke on the topic of her daughter being marked. She felt sadness for the situation. But, not all who go home keep their emotions. They are returned back unto which they came from. Once you return home, all emotions are stripped. I was speaking for a select few who hold emotions above, not as a collective.

reply to post by halfoldman

Therefore, I'm not sure whether theology can be changed by human interaction with God. Certainly some groups have a theology that God can be made to bring about the second coming if man fulfills certain things to pressure Him to do so.

It actually would be the other way around. Father gave the order not long ago to shorten the time man has to be here, because they haven't proven themselves as of yet. Others above have come to him to show that man can change and do better. This will have to wait to be proven.

I cannot say it's impossible to protest God, or force the hand of God.

No one can force his hand, only make suggestions in which he takes into account. You can protest, but he will make you learn and come to his understanding if that makes sense. He will show you one way or another.