Lots of questions in here so I am going to focus on the ~main~ themes/questions I observed.
To begin, God is never proving Himself to Satan, He's already established this. However, God allows the Adversary to test Job so as to demonstrate Job's unfaltering faith in God. God is not directly pulling the strings of suffering, but rather taking a passive seat and allowing such tragedies to fall upon Job.
You ask why God, who is supposedly all-good, to allow such things to happen, especially as it appears as if He is capable of demonstrating Job's faith without the gratuitous pain. This is a great question and one which I feel no one has a succinct answer to, but I will attempt to provide a semblance of an answer,
While the book of Job, upon first reading, may seem like God and Satan pulling the strings of Job's life and thus forcing his hand, it is exactly the opposite. God shows Satan of Job's faith through allowing Him to freely reject or maintain his faith through the trials. Allowing Job the free will to make these decisions is the only way to show Satan that Job is truly faithful and not just "good" because God says it is so.
Next, yes, God does have the foreknowledge of Job's decision making and thus knows from the beginning that Job will maintain his righteousness throughout his trials. This begs the question as to why the trials would even need to occur. With free will, while God knows what path Job will take, he still has the option to take a different path. God is not deciding which path Job will take, that is solely upon Job.
While I do not fully understand why Job, or anyone, must endure such trials I have to believe that there is a greater purpose I am not able to or meant to comprehend (this sucks, I know, still trying to discern why, allllllllll the time). What is evident in the book of Job is God's willingness to let His people suffer in the name of free will, and His ability to remain just in the face of such suffering.
Let me know what you think, this topic and book have been heavy on my heart recently.

This is not appropriate fodder for a philosophy forum. But...

Yes, your christian god acts in immoral ways. The Bible tells us so.

You now have to make the decision - will you follow your immoral god, or will you do what is right?

Yes, your christian god acts in immoral ways. The Bible tells us so. — Banno

Actually, the book of Job is in the Tanakh, and is thus not the christian god, but the god of the hebrews.

That being said, I'd like to hear your ideas on doing what is right. Is there a secular theme somewhere with regard to suffering and doing what's right?

So you need someone else to tell you what to do?

The efforts made over the years to explain that the God portrayed in the Book of Job is just, merciful, and loving are so sophistical, so brazen, so shamelessly contrived in support of deplorable misconduct and cruelty, that even I, a lawyer of vast experience and incomparable ability, blush when they're made.
,

Omnipotent, Perfectly Good God — PhilosophyAttempter

When will people understand this was by Christians settled most of a thousand years ago, being at least a two-thousand year old problem? Perfectly good and omnipotent are incompatible. Christians like Ockham and Martin Luther, in consideration of the matter, voted for omnipotence, leaving the problem of goodness still to ad hoc resolutions.

Actually, the book of Job is in the Tanakh, and is thus not the christian god, but the god of the hebrews. — uncanni

this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.

One.

It's still worth pointing out what a poor response this is.

So you need someone else to tell you what to do? — Banno

Absolutely not. That doesn't mean that I don't reconsider my actions in light of new information.

As for Jesus being disowned, and "one," you lost me there.

Perfectly good and omnipotent are incompatible. Christians like Ockham and Martin Luther, in consideration of the matter, voted for omnipotence, leaving the problem of goodness still to ad hoc resolutions. — tim wood

If that's right then they didn't understand the concepts. It follows from God's omnipotence that everything is good from God's point of view. It can still be really shitty from our point of view though, with no contradiction.

If that's right then they didn't understand the concepts. It follows from God's omnipotence that everything is good from God's point of view. — bert1

From reading about Luther that was basically his problem. If good from God's POV, then may very well be bad from Luther's. But God isn't bad - cannot be bad. According to what I read (now some time ago), Luther decided that God was indeed omnipotent, but had distanced himself, leaving a benign and "good" Jesus Christ for all of us.

If that's right then they didn't understand the concepts. — bert1

This is a little ambitious. And it leaves the question, if God is an optional idea, a concept, then why believe in a potentially, even actually, misanthropic god? Or if he exists as a real being somehow, how can he (any being) be omnipotent?

The problem with all discussions of g/G (ty 180) is that they're built on non-sense, and it's not-so-easy to make sense of non-sense.

Was this violating Job’s free will and thus being unjust?
Does this looks bad for God and thus for theists who define God as all good, powerful and just?
I am genuinely not sure where I stand on this dilemma and would be very interested to hear thoughts on this. — PhilosophyAttempter

As a Deist, here's my thoughts on Divine Justice, as revealed in the story of JOB.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page59.html

You now have to make the decision - will you follow your immoral god, or will you do what is right? — Banno

Do you know what is right?

The narrative setting up the crappy things that happen to Job is not a theology so much as an exploration of how persons are tested by situations that would encourage them to curse the creator and their existence.

Most of the text is devoted to having Job's "friends" try to convince him that he is to blame for what is happening to him. Whatever staying faithful means in the situation is being directly related to a refusal to accept blame where it does not belong.

You don’t?

No, educate us, if you are able to(?)

I'm afraid you will need to work it out for yourself. That's how it is.

“If God is good and all powerful, wouldn’t He make an alternative option that involves no suffering?”

The question you stated here reminds me of one of the arguments I heard recently for soul-making theodicy. This is the idea that perhaps God tested Job so that even under extreme pressures, he could freely choose him, and grow in his faith. So, Job’s tormentation was not purposeless, it was specifically designed by God so that Job could be shaped into who he wanted him to be. God may have had reasons for suffering that Job was not aware of at the time and that none of us may be aware of but fit into the larger scheme of things. Job’s suffering may have existed to serve the greater good.

I believe your argument falls into this form :

1. Job faced suffering.
2. If God was good he would have spared Job of this suffering.
3. God did not save Job of his suffering.
4. God is not good. (2,3)

I believe the argument for soul-making theodicy falls into this form : against premise 2

1. Suffering is justified if it serves the greater good.
2. Soul making is the greatest good.
3. Suffering is justified.

In the case of Job, he was not “blameless”, he was human with all of the typical flaws that come with humanity, in Job’s case his flaw . God testing Job was to make him even more like him. God allowed Job to suffer so that he could grow through and from the experience. In Matthew 7-9 God says just this, “Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes! And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.”

This is not appropriate fodder for a philosophy forum. But...

Yes, your christian god acts in immoral ways. The Bible tells us so.

You now have to make the decision - will you follow your immoral god, or will you do what is right? — Banno

Your statement is a little confusing, on the one hand you're stating that the OP's concern is not appropriate " fodder for a philosophy forum", yet on the other you were suggesting you have a better alternative thus " will you do what is right?"

So my question remains, what is right?

And my answer remains the same.

Okay, but your lack of an answer suggests that you are either trolling or disrespectful toward the OP.

Dude, I gave you the answer. You have to decide for yourself what is right.

Decide what? I'm not following you.

yah. I agree.

yah. I agree — Banno

That God is just or unjust?

that you are not following.

What I got out of Job, over many years of being brought up very Christian, was, weirdly, the Christian gospel narrative itself. Job as a blameless, "upright" dude nonetheless suffered greatly. So...his "works", his actions, didn't win him any favors; he still faced suffering. ("not by works alone", etc.) No matter how perfect he was, he still suffered. He wasn't exempt. He does function as a Christ figure, of sorts. But, outside of Christianity, this is a lesson that rings, if anything, even truer. The spirit of the story breathes even clearer: pain will find you; suffering will find you; you are not special, just because you follow the rules. And, as all religions attest to, the experience of suffering, if accepted humbly, leads to wisdom. And wisdom is a beautiful gift; an esoteric gift.

The failure to establish union with God, failure to seek repentance, or failure to have faith can all resort in damnation to Hell and eternal suffering; however, why would God inflict suffering on someone who fulfills all three conditions above (establishes union with God, seeks repentance, and has faith)?

Job, a blameless being in God’s eyes, is put to the test when Satan challenges his faith to God. — PhilosophyAttempter

You actually have it pointing the wrong way: it is God who challenges Satan (Job 1:8), and it is Satan who puts Job to the test (Job 1:10-11).

God inflicts severe suffering onto Job: kills his family, ends his job, and destroys his health. — PhilosophyAttempter

Satan did the afflicting though, God was entirely passive, invoking the sin of envy from Satan by asking innocent questions (Romans 6:23, James 1:13).

I’m not quite sure if it was God’s goal to prove Himself to Satan or to set an example for others by doing this, — PhilosophyAttempter

It is important to notice that Satan came to be among the sons of God (iow, the angelic realm - eg, Ephesians 6:12, Luke 10:18, Hebrews 12:26-29). It also is important to recognise the error in common folklore about Satan - that the word itself is a name for the spirit that opposes God. It isn't a name of a fallen angel as the folklore teaches.

So in Job 1:6 (see the interlinear) the spirit of opposition to God had come to be among the sons of God - therefore, the sons of God were found to be unholy in God's presence - tainted by disloyalty and resentment against Him. God knew this, and He addressed that spirit in the congregation: "where have you come from?". The answer? "Roam all over the earth, see for yourself". Thus, God responds "Did you see my servant Job? He is upright." - and in thus doing, God demands that the sons of God restore their faith in Him, because He does yet have an opportunity to reign through His servant. But, as you know and I know, that discomfort produces impatience, and impatience anxiety - so the spirit of Satan was not cast out by the fact that God had testified of Job's righteousness. Instead, the Satan rose, through the power of resentment in the sons of God, to put Job to the test.

For the context of what I am saying here, recognise that the sons of God are of the heavenly realm (Luke 20:36, John 14:2), servants of God, tasked with watching and directing mankind. In Hebrews 1:14 the rhetorical question asks "are they not all ministering spirits, to serve those who are inheriting salvation?" and in 2 Peter 2:4 he says the ones who did not serve their proper function, have fallen and are bound with gloomy darkness (therefore, they are cut off and do not see the light of God's plan - yet they still operate according to their natural function, but not according to their original purpose - they are the fallen angels, the demons). In Genesis 6:2, it speaks of them as the sons of God who looked with desire upon the women of men, and produced offspring with them - for "having sinned" as St. Peter wrote.

Job later refers to "the watcher of men" as his enemy, as also in Daniel we find the expression used a lot (https://biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=watcher&qs_version=TLV), and as Daniel 9:22-27 shows, there is an angel called Gabriel who comes with a message that "the time is running out. 70 weeks are decreed for your people, to put an end to transgression, to anoint the holy of holies and bring in everlasting righteousness".. and as we know through Jesus' testimonies "with man it is impossible to be saved, but with God all things are possible" and "My father, I am the one who knows all things are possible for you .. nevertheless if this cup cannot pass away unless I drink of it, may your will be done" (for God indeed loved the world, that He gave up His only begotten), and yet you see that Gabriel knew this when he spoke to Daniel: "Messiah shall be cut off, having nothing for himself and the people of a prince that is coming shall destroy the temple - and until the end of the war, desolation has been determined".

So that gives you a glimpse of the insight to heaven's war against the sin on earth - and just as in the says of Noah, when Noah found favour in the eyes of God, only eight souls were saved (but we presently have a promise that there are multitudes of those who have washed their garments, having come through the tribulation). Also notice that the expression Jesus used in Luke 10:18 when He was reflecting upon the miracles that His disciples had done at His having sent them: "I am beholding Satan having fallen from heaven" - the word "beheld" is indicated in the Greek as "Imperfect tense" - meaning that it is a present ongoing action.

One more thing that I have noticed WRT this topic, that the angel Gabriel is named in Daniel as having delivered the message of judgement coming upon the earth, also is the one named by Islam as having delivered the message to their prophet Mohammed - though, I do not say this to necessarily affirm that it is the same angel, because it is not mine to say. It is fair to say that there is only one angel Gabriel, but as the example God Himself gives us - that there is only one Holy Spirit but many counterfeits, there is no guarantee that a carnal name badge really does represent the person it claims to represent (2 Corinthians 5:16). So "test all things and hold fast to the good", that's what I say. Every liar will have his place in the lake of fire.

but regardless God intentionally inflicted suffering on a blameless being. — PhilosophyAttempter

Hopefully that has formed a clearer picture for you, to see that God did not have the intention of inflicting the suffering on Job - but His intention was to exorcise the Satan from the midst of His sons in heaven, and they allowed the Satan to have a voice against God in their midst, at Job's expense.

If God was an omniscient being, wouldn’t he have known from the beginning that Job would worship Him no matter the pain He inflicts on him? — PhilosophyAttempter

Yes, that is exactly what God declares by saying "see for yourself! .. he is in your hands".

If so, why would He continue to cause pain to a blameless being to prove something to Satan that He already knew to be true. — PhilosophyAttempter

Hebrews 12:26-27 has a good answer to that.

Was this violating Job’s free will and thus being unjust? — PhilosophyAttempter

Yes, it was.

Does this looks bad for God and thus for theists who define God as all good, powerful and just? — PhilosophyAttempter

As always, it depends upon the individual judgement of the one who is looking at it. Ultimately, it is Job's right to make that judgement, and we can see that in Job 42:1-6.

To begin, as other commenters have pointed out, in the story of Job God is not the one directly acting and causing all of Job’s intense suffering. God is, however, sitting passively by while the suffering occurs. At the end of the suffering, when Job has lost everything, doubted, but nonetheless maintained his faith, God restores everything Job lost and then some. Theologically, this story can be taken as a small-scale recreation of life. God allows Satan to work evil in our lives, but those who remain faithful despite doubt will be rewarded greatly in the end. All this aside, you bring up a very potent problem for theism, the Problem of Evil, wherein God, omnibenevolent, omnipotent being allows evil to occur. Simply, the argument goes (sourced from my philosophy of religion professor):

1. Necessarily, if God exists, then
1.a. God has the power to eliminate evil,
1.b. God knows how to eliminate evil, and
1.c. God has the desire to eliminate evil.
2. Necessarily, if anyone has the power/knowledge/desire to eliminate all evil, then evil does not exist.
3. Therefore, necessarily, if God exists, then evil does not exist. (1,2 HS).
4. Evil exists.
5. Therefore, God doesn’t exist. (3,4 MT)

Now, it seems like you do not necessarily oppose God’s existence; you seem to question something along the line of 1c, that God desires to eliminate evil. I have to agree with you, this does look like a problem for theists. If we assert that God exists, we must attack some premise along the argument above. 2 follows naturally from 1, 3 from 1 and 2, 4 seems obvious, so all that is left is 1 itself with its three subpoints. Omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence: it seems your intuition points you toward rejecting omnibenevolence. I, too, feel the need to reject 1c, though I think your argument for doing so is the best as you sacrifice omnibenevolence. Here is what I think your argument is:

1. God is omniscient.
2. If God is omniscient, God knows the past, present, and future details of our lives.
3. God knows the past, present, and future details of our lives. (1,2 MP)
4. God knew the past, present and future details of Job’s life. (Drawn from 3)
5. God knew Job would choose to remain faithful regardless of suffering. (Inferred from 4)
6. If God knew Job would choose to remain faithful regardless of suffering, God is not omnibenevolent (a-c HS)
6.a. If God knew Job would choose to remain faithful regardless of suffering, the intermediating suffering God allowed was unnecessary.
6.b. If Job’s intermediating suffering was unnecessary, God allowed Job to suffer unjustly.
6.c. If God allowed Job to suffer unjustly, God is not omnibenevolent.
7. God is not omnibenevolent. (4, 8 MP)

If this is indeed the core of your argument (and I am not positive it is, since I don’t fully understand what your free will point is), then I would object chiefly at premise 6a. If we took this argument to be applicable to our lives, then since God knows who will be faithful and who will not, our lives (including the intermediate suffering in them) are unnecessary. However, most think our lives have some sort of purpose. Why not suffering as well? Under the soul-making theodicy, we suffer evil for the purpose of growing in spiritual maturity, growing closer to God. God allows us to choose God, and to do so requires an understanding of the depth and breadth of God’s love regardless of our suffering. One could think God is benevolent simply in the act of allowing us to live our lives at all, as he could just create us at the end of it all at the place of our final development. But the suffering and life itself is worth it because living is worth it, it develops us for the life to come.

Please let me know if this helps at all. I would appreciate the feedback as this is an issue I struggle with as well.

Well put :clap: