Bolshevik

Numbers are real. Just like physical matter is real?

I don't know what killed the baby. Infant mortality rates were probably very high back then. Probably not the only child she lost. I don't know. She would be in the same boat as every mother at the time? They didn't have modern medicine. Did the Bible say what Bathsheba thought? She's with the King now. Ultimate hypergamy. If she were a modern woman . . . . . . It's a story. With a purpose. Maybe these events happened, maybe they didn't. It's not important. There's some point to the story. Some argument to reveal that's more important than the events stated. That's what matters.

I'm sure it's rarely black and white. What David did with Uriah was clearly a misuse of the nation's military.

So did Math.

The concept of God evolved over time. I think you're taking a Fundamentalist viewpoint. Compared to a lot of people David WAS a saint. This judgement on David takes the view that any of us could be as GOOD as David was when he was GOOD, without being as BAD as he was when he was BAD.

This thread is an old and for the bin. I don't know the answer, Grace. Waybrain, just is.

Nothing. God is dead. Christendom does not exist. Or is not defined. So I would assume any Western Mind. They'd treat him like a Rock Star.

I think as has been shown the knee-jerk reaction is to incarcerate David. One of things that goes on in the OT is that Kingdoms rise, fall, rise, split, fall. Why? People aren't perfect. The systems they build aren't perfect. People in good systems corrupt the system. I think this is a story that addresses some of that issue and how things can be better. Attacking David is the easy answer. Preserving David in order to preserve Israel or their culture is better in the long run for Israel. Hence God and forgiveness is invoked.

Why on earth would anyone think that? I live in a world where Mother Nature rules. Having some God deal out whatever situation I think is best is not an option I have. Maybe you do. I think this story presents a difficult and intriguing question. With a difficult choice to make. Thank you rrob for starting the ball rolling on that.

Try looking at it from the view of human beings within systems of other human beings. We talked about Yertle the Tertle in another thread. Respectfully, you have a prepackaged argument that does not flow here. I do think we can have a productive argument though. Was justice more important than survival?

Yes. But he may pay in conscience. The system that organizes and protects the people, which a King holds together, I do not understand how that can be ignored.

I don't believe I am inventing anything. You're being silly. I think we can have better discussion than this.

Well, God can be viewed as the combination of former gods over the course of history. I think you're injecting some other argument.

why not? It's a Kingdom. Why do kingdom's exist? (or, why did they originate?)

Whose genocide would be facilitated by removal of a King?

Well, God serves a function in a society. If not him, then something else. To me, it's like your saying T-Rex was a failure, because, where is he now? Every point in evolution is part of the process and should be appreciated.

Remember when LCM wrote a letter to all Wayfers about banging some other Dudes' wife? He came clean. He was removed. We all did one big group hug and TWI has flourished ever since.

You want me to sacrifice my family for some ideal? Because it looks good on paper? Sorry about your luck, Uriah.

I would equate casting out David with killing all your friends and family. So he abused his power. My loved ones are ALIVE. Why did Europe have a bunch of lordships? Because Vikings. People want to not die. Removing the King means war. Invasion. Death.

Strawman. Nobody has the full answer. Democracy has it's downsides as well. Of which or system is not, technically. Monarchies are the result of very needed purposes. They come with downsides. Each system has a price to receive the benefits. Did God build the system(s) or is God a result of the system? Or a little of both? I don't know. But jailing David would seem immoral to me considering the context.

You could just say it's a neat story of reflecting on the consequences or responsibility of self-awareness.

The impression from the essay is a request for blind submission. There's this doctrine to follow, it's in The Bible, but no specifics about it. With out clear direction it sounds easy to screw up. I assume more instructions would then follow.

You get infinite do-overs. Rewrite it. Break down your reasoning further. Don't begin with an analogy, but use it to support previous statements. Just ideas. I think there IS more you can do.

David was a King. If you remove the king you create chaos. The whole kingdom would suffer. It would make sense to leave him there, despite his malicious blunder. To preserve everyone else. "God forgiving" in this case would make practical sense. Removing him to be "moral" would be foolish. In the modern world we have a president. Those are replaced all the time anyway. This system has learned, evolved from, previous systems. Not to mention Waysider's detailed point above.

I'm trying to tell you why your 6 paragraph essay is incoherent. The reader can only guess what your point even is.