Reformed Readers discussion

I have just begun studying Job. I have read it but never attempted to pinpoint and analyze the arguments.

Piety in particular increases the susceptibility of the soul to process suffering and loss. Religion deepens the sensitivity to suffering and offers the only true assurance to process the pain. Philosophy (naturalism/humanism) and paganism only hardens the heart, seeks to blame (reason?) and to dispel grief with common knowledge. Religion, and in particular faith, allows a person to feel, and to feel deeply. The pious man has nowhere to go in trial but the arms of His God; so he falls prostrate before the Lord God, who not only has [ultimately] afflicted him, but who alone can save him.

I find the book of Job very enigmatic. It is impossible to put things into simple categories. The friends are wrong, but typically they say good things (at the wrong time). Also, when does Job cross the line? Different commentators and pastors through the ages have said different things. Is the fourth, young friend right or just another irritation? Job is as messy as life!

Robert wrote: "I find the book of Job very enigmatic. It is impossible to put things into simple categories. The friends are wrong, but typically they say good things (at the wrong time). Also, when does Job c..."

I've often wondered about that, about how to read the book, since when reading what the friends say I often end up thinking... 'well, that's not /wrong/, but...'

Now I am only at Chapter 2, but my view of the book has changed in a significant way. What if the whole is not a answer of suffering or why is there evil, as is the popular assessment. What if it is God on Trial, God in the Docket (CS Lewis). What if this book is men putting God on trial? Now this changes the perspective and makes for a more dynamic conversation. The antithesis is changed as well, from why men suffer to "just who is in charge here, us or Him".

Also, I am less theological than some and more literary looking for connections, basic truths, unification and constructions. I would not make a good theologian, less logical and more analytical.