Again, respond to my argument with at least a fraction of the effort I — Noble Dust

Since by your own admission you reject any use the Bible might have in giving us an insight into gods moral guidance I cant see what your argument is for.
If you want to use the book as an example to uncover what the writer thought about god, then that would be more interesting.
But I fail to see what use it is, if you ignore anything we can learn about the portrayed character of god, to conclude any moral insights. Moral insights from a wager between god and his buddy Satan which ignore the basic facts of the scenario are worthless.

You say those who promote scripture are guilty by association. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

The devout propagate the idea that genocide misogyny and rape are okay by propagating the Bible as the word of God.
What do you not understand by this?

Since by your own admission you reject any use the Bible might have in giving us an insight into gods moral guidance I cant see what your argument is for. — charleton

That’s an egregious characature of what I said.

If you want to use the book as an example to uncover what the writer thought about god, then that would be more interesting. — charleton

Indeed, not interpreting scripture in a literal manner does just that because it naturally takes into account the unavoidable anthropomorphism of ancient religious texts.

But I fail to see what use it is, if you ignore anything we can learn about the portrayed character of god, to conclude any moral insights. Moral insights from a wager between god and his buddy Satan which ignore the basic facts of the scenario are worthless. — charleton

Another egregious caricature of what I said. You’re presenting the interpretation of scripture as a black and white affair; a nuanced approach to interpretation takes all various approaches to interpretation and attempts to judge which tool to use in which case. Surely you should know that since atheists know scripture better than Christians (of which I’m neither).

It doesn’t make sense to claim that an all knowing all powerful God would make a bet because that presupposes — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Duh. I'm not claiming that. The Bible is.

That’s an egregious characature of what I said. — Noble Dust

It's not even a caricature. You said not to take it literally. But this is just an excuse to avoid inferring the capricious nature of god, which was most likely the author's intention.

Indeed, not interpreting scripture in a literal manner does just that because it naturally takes into account the unavoidable anthropomorphism of ancient religious texts. — Noble Dust

If it says nothing about God at all why bother. Or do you like to cherry pick?

Oof, I don’t do well with having words put in my mouth, and I can’t keep going in circles like this. Till next time.

I'm a muslim, and can find plenty that I think is wrong with the bible — Mr Phil O'Sophy

The Koran is much worst for inaccuracies, contradictions, hatred and immorality.
What is the message of the OT?? The message that you want to characterise positively?

So, God might not be all Good, is that what you are suggesting? There are plenty of interpretations and that tends to get brought up quite often with the problem of evil (suffering).

So, God might not be all Good, is that what you are suggesting? There are plenty of interpretations and that tends to get brought up quite often with the problem of evil (suffering). — Posty McPostface

No I'm not suggesting. The Book of Job insists upon it.

There is NO risk for God and neither is the event unpredictable if he is an All Knowing Being. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

You fail to understand the regard of that the author of Job, had of god. You are just shoe-horning your own view of god where is does not fit.

The author of Job quite clearly had a completely different apprehension of God to you. It is a view of god far more common in the ancient world unhindered by Augustine's omni-everything view, which is simply NOT present in the OT at all.

The God of the OT is capricious, vengeful, violent and by modern standards a pretty evil genocidal maniac giving favours to the Jewish race, that your Creed characterises as "Apes"

Peace be with you, and may God guide us all to the straight path, and make us those who seek truth. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

If god is all powerful then what use is there asking this? He's going to do it his way whatever you say.

Well, that's an interpretation, you know? Some are more acknowledged by others and some aren't.

Goodnight, God bless, and peace be with you. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Please do not use god in this way again to me.

Its funny, he's accusing me of the very things he himself is guilty of. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

This is the complete converse of reality.

I am reading the "Commentary on the Book of Job" by Thomas Aquinas right now. If I get some new insight, I will post it here. It's a long commentary (like 50 lines of commentary for every 10 lines in the book) so don't hold your breath.

The book of Job is important because it tells us that Satan was the left hand man of God at the time of Job. Satan is not thrown from Heaven until Revelations of the New Testament, which was way in the future, with respect to the time of Job. Satan is in heaven during the Old Testament and most of the New Testament, until the future prophesied by the Revelations of John.

At the time of Job, Satan was analogous to God's Chief Operating Officer; COO, in terms of humans and the earth. Although God ranks above Satan, God is not fully involved in the day-to-day operations of humans. He delegates most of this job to his COO, Satan. This is why God is open to the council of Satan. The story of Job, tells us about the beginning of a falling out between God and his old Testament COO. God realizes he was given bad advice about Job.

What is important about the book of Job is it brings up the point that the assumed God of the old Testament, may have actually been God's COO, Satan. This explains the apparent hypocrisy of God. The analogy is owning a business and having a CEO who makes decisions that reflect on you. Satan is still Heaven, even at the time of Jesus. In Revelations, Jesus eventually takes over the role of COO; right hand of God. God was/is still the same and unchanging, but now he has better council; new COO Jesus.

Further evidence that Satan was the left hand man and the COO of God, during the old Testament, was the temptation of Christ in the desert. Satan promises Jesus the wealth and power of all the kingdoms of the earth, if Jesus would bow down and worship him. This is considered a temptation, because Satan had the authority to do this, since he was in charge of these possessions as COO. Jesus does not call Satan out, as someone trying to con him. Rather, Jesus does not accept the offer.

The analogy is, God was like the owner of a lot of fast food franchises; universe. In each store, he has a manager. Each manager has the authority to make decisions and spend money on the behalf of the owner. The owner is busy keeping track of the bigger picture, and periodically has his managers report to him.

Satan as manager of the earth franchise, had a lot of autonomy, and could act on the behalf of God. During this advisory committee meeting with God; Job, Satan was demonstrating his leadership style. He was sort of a bully, and God starts to wonder if Satan is right for the job. He is not fired right away.