To me, the notion that an all-powerful God cannot remove a corrupt murderer as king without jeopardizing the security of Israel is contradictory. If He's all-powerful, he should be able to do that with no difficulty whatsoever.
Christians today would NEVER handle this the way Yahweh did, for the simple reason that Christians today are more moral than the God they worship.
Of course, I'm talking about ACTUAL Christians, who care about things like morality.
If we're talking about hypocrites who CALL themselves Christians but know nothing of morality, they would probably elect a stone-cold murderer as long as he hated the same people they hate.
To me, the notion that an all-powerful God cannot remove a corrupt murderer as king without jeopardizing the security of Israel is contradictory. If He's all-powerful, he should be able to do that with no difficulty whatsoever.
Christians today would NEVER handle this the way Yahweh did, for the simple reason that Christians today are more moral than the God they worship.
RAF, are Christians today more moral than God??!! Interesting question I think.
Depends on whether we're talking about Christians or people who call themselves Christians but don't seem to have the slightest idea what Christianity stands for.
Depends on whether we're talking about Christians or people who call themselves Christians but don't seem to have the slightest idea what Christianity stands for.
To me, the notion that an all-powerful God cannot remove a corrupt murderer as king without jeopardizing the security of Israel is contradictory. If He's all-powerful, he should be able to do that with no difficulty whatsoever.
Christians today would NEVER handle this the way Yahweh did, for the simple reason that Christians today are more moral than the God they worship.
Of course, I'm talking about ACTUAL Christians, who care about things like morality.
If we're talking about hypocrites who CALL themselves Christians but know nothing of morality, they would probably elect a stone-cold murderer as long as he hated the same people they hate.
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.
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.
Bol, true. But, what about people in military campaigns?? Are they bad when they kill people to protect their country?? Or, is killing people to protect your country, a form of murder?? I don't have an answer, but I was very concerned about this question when I was in the Navy. Thank God, I never had to shoot anyone, but the question is something I have wondered about for years.
Bol, true. But, what about people in military campaigns?? Are they bad when they kill people to protect their country?? Or, is killing people to protect your country, a form of murder?? I don't have an answer, but I was very concerned about this question when I was in the Navy. Thank God, I never had to shoot anyone, but the question is something I have wondered about for years.
I'm sure it's rarely black and white.
What David did with Uriah was clearly a misuse of the nation's military.
What David did with Uriah was clearly a misuse of the nation's military.
True, but he and Beth-sheba lost their child. I would not wish the death of a child on anyone. Why did Beth-sheba, and the son have to pay for David's misuse of the military??
True, but he and Beth-sheba lost their child. I would not wish the death of a child on anyone. Why did Beth-sheba, and the son have to pay for David's misuse of the military??
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.
To me, the notion that an all-powerful God cannot remove a corrupt murderer as king without jeopardizing the security of Israel is contradictory. If He's all-powerful, he should be able to do that with no difficulty whatsoever.
Christians today would NEVER handle this the way Yahweh did, for the simple reason that Christians today are more moral than the God they worship.
Of course, I'm talking about ACTUAL Christians, who care about things like morality.
If we're talking about hypocrites who CALL themselves Christians but know nothing of morality, they would probably elect a stone-cold murderer as long as he hated the same people they hate.
I understand the impulsive thought to call God less moral. (Maybe this can be moved to another thread).
Humans organize themselves to benefit the most people in the most efficient manner known. These systems have evolved over time. God is part of those systems (technically apart from, for a purpose). So the concept of God evolves as the system people organize themselves in evolves. To benefit everyone, as a group. I think that is moral.
To look back in disgust is to not appreciate march of time forward. To not understand our place in history.
That we have the systems we do today is a miracle. To not appreciate previous methods as a step above what was before, to simply look down on them, is ego, and immoral.
I think a person today and a person 10,000 years ago would have the same impulse, or emotional response, to David's actions concerning Uriah. If modern humans would simply act on impulse, than we have de-evolved.
I don't think there's a need for a new thread, given that it's already the subject of an old thread.
I think we can keep it on topic for this thread by, as others have demonstrated, persistently reminding us of the original question.
The original question is, what would Christianity today have done with David, given what we know.
Given what we know, it is my belief and opinion that Christianity today would try him as a criminal, and rightly so.
And unlike (apparently) the rest of you (if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it), I do not believe for a heartbeat that this reflects badly on Christianity today. I think murder and conspiracy to commit murder should be prosecuted, not excused.
And I don't think an omnipotent God should suddenly be helpless to bring a murderer to justice because doing so would have negative ramifications on a kingdom. He is omnipotent. He can protect the kingdom and bring the murderer to justice at the same time.
This is especially relevant given that the ramifications of what David did ultimately ripped the kingdom apart anyway, according to scripture!
It just seems to me that we're doing everything we can to get around the fact that God excused a murder, but made damn sure to punish a baby and a kingdom for it.
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 missed this earlier.
I think we can agree on the important part of this: Namely, that what we're discussing is greatly alleviated if this is a story and the events did not actually happen to real people. This would make sense on a number of levels, all of which are off topic. My points are irrelevant, except as a theoretical exercise, if no one is insisting on this as actual history.
That we have the systems we do today is a miracle. To not appreciate previous methods as a step above what was before, to simply look down on them, is ego, and immoral.
I think a person today and a person 10,000 years ago would have the same impulse, or emotional response, to David's actions concerning Uriah. If modern humans would simply act on impulse, than we have de-evolved.
1. There is nothing "miraculous" about societies adapting over time to recognize that there is a better way to do things. Looking down on what came before is neither ego nor immoral. It is, rather, the only way to improve.
2. God should be incapable of improving. Thus, his actions 7,000 years ago are subject to the very same moral analysis we use today. "It was a different time" can excuse what ignorant men did, but it cannot excuse what an omnipotent, omniscient God who defines himself as "love" did.
Of course, if the David and Bathsheba story never happened, that changes the game. Same with Job. But that's another story.
I think we can agree on the important part of this: Namely, that what we're discussing is greatly alleviated if this is a story and the events did not actually happen to real people. This would make sense on a number of levels, all of which are off topic. My points are irrelevant, except as a theoretical exercise, if no one is insisting on this as actual history.
I'm not going to argue that there where talking snakes.
Our ancestors co-evolved with snakes. It's in our DNA to recognize them. Coincidence the devil is represented by a snake?
1. There is nothing "miraculous" about societies adapting over time to recognize that there is a better way to do things. Looking down on what came before is neither ego nor immoral. It is, rather, the only way to improve.
2. God should be incapable of improving. Thus, his actions 7,000 years ago are subject to the very same moral analysis we use today. "It was a different time" can excuse what ignorant men did, but it cannot excuse what an omnipotent, omniscient God who defines himself as "love" did.
Of course, if the David and Bathsheba story never happened, that changes the game. Same with Job. But that's another story.
If I used "awe inspiring" instead of "miraculous", might be semantics here. I'm not conjuring the supernatural to solve problems. DNA is a miracle because I just think it is. Evolution is an amazing process. Societies evolving is the same. That gods were conceptualized and formed God later is also important to note.
I think your conception of God is too strict. Yes, people think that way. I'm not trying to push that. Collective wisdom is greater than the sum of the individuals, and isn't easy to articulate. That's where God lives.
There WAS good reason to leave David in place, in spite of the obvious need for justice that is instinctively felt by any normally functioning human from any millennia. For the sake of the nation, which had more value than any individual.
Victor Paul Wierwille and Loy Craig Martindale where not leaders of anything of value.
So it was impossible for God to serve justice with David while simultaneously protecting Israel.
An all-powerful God couldn't pull that off.
Never mind that Israel fell apart because of what David did, not a generation later, according to scripture.
God is an abstract concept. That is real. I'm not sure that we argue with something like that.
The story, or the abstract message within it, is what is important. Not what actually happened. Since it's the story that connects people both geographically and in time. The story survived. Historical facts do not. Useless stories also don't survive. This one did.
Exactly what the message is? I don't know. Stories with no perfect solution usually carry the best message. I mentioned Personal Justice vs State Survival. Maybe there's a better idea besides that, or just saying it's a terrible old book, and how we couldn't fathom David's behavior.
(BTW - God is dead. God is also real. Descriptions of abstract contradict and don't contradict at the same time. Take that VPW and your hand in your glove)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
30
38
10
6
Popular Days
Jul 11
47
Jul 12
10
Jul 9
9
Jul 8
7
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 30 posts
Bolshevik 38 posts
Grace Valerie Claire 10 posts
rrobs 6 posts
Popular Days
Jul 11 2017
47 posts
Jul 12 2017
10 posts
Jul 9 2017
9 posts
Jul 8 2017
7 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
Life in prison without parole.
waysider
"Dave's not here, man."
waysider
In the U.S., his fate (for his actions, not his beliefs) would be decided by society and governing entities, not.Christendom. If Christendom became part of the decision making process deciding David'
Raf
?
I answered you sincerely and without sarcasm. What gives?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
To me, the notion that an all-powerful God cannot remove a corrupt murderer as king without jeopardizing the security of Israel is contradictory. If He's all-powerful, he should be able to do that with no difficulty whatsoever.
Christians today would NEVER handle this the way Yahweh did, for the simple reason that Christians today are more moral than the God they worship.
Of course, I'm talking about ACTUAL Christians, who care about things like morality.
If we're talking about hypocrites who CALL themselves Christians but know nothing of morality, they would probably elect a stone-cold murderer as long as he hated the same people they hate.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
RAF, are Christians today more moral than God??!! Interesting question I think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Depends on whether we're talking about Christians or people who call themselves Christians but don't seem to have the slightest idea what Christianity stands for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Raf, great post!!! Bingo!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
"The concept of God evolved over time."
Yeah, that happens with fictional characters.
Originally, Superman couldn't fly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Bol, true. But, what about people in military campaigns?? Are they bad when they kill people to protect their country?? Or, is killing people to protect your country, a form of murder?? I don't have an answer, but I was very concerned about this question when I was in the Navy. Thank God, I never had to shoot anyone, but the question is something I have wondered about for years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
So did Math.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm sure it's rarely black and white.
What David did with Uriah was clearly a misuse of the nation's military.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Yes, math evolved over time, but its principles didn't change. We just learned them.
2+2=4 always. At all times. It was that way before man figured out addition, and it will be that way long after humanity is extinct.
2+2 didn't become four slowly after people realized 2+2=3 didn't make sense.
Nice try, though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
True, but he and Beth-sheba lost their child. I would not wish the death of a child on anyone. Why did Beth-sheba, and the son have to pay for David's misuse of the military??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Numbers are real. Just like physical matter is real?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I understand the impulsive thought to call God less moral. (Maybe this can be moved to another thread).
Humans organize themselves to benefit the most people in the most efficient manner known. These systems have evolved over time. God is part of those systems (technically apart from, for a purpose). So the concept of God evolves as the system people organize themselves in evolves. To benefit everyone, as a group. I think that is moral.
To look back in disgust is to not appreciate march of time forward. To not understand our place in history.
That we have the systems we do today is a miracle. To not appreciate previous methods as a step above what was before, to simply look down on them, is ego, and immoral.
I think a person today and a person 10,000 years ago would have the same impulse, or emotional response, to David's actions concerning Uriah. If modern humans would simply act on impulse, than we have de-evolved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't think there's a need for a new thread, given that it's already the subject of an old thread.
I think we can keep it on topic for this thread by, as others have demonstrated, persistently reminding us of the original question.
The original question is, what would Christianity today have done with David, given what we know.
Given what we know, it is my belief and opinion that Christianity today would try him as a criminal, and rightly so.
And unlike (apparently) the rest of you (if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it), I do not believe for a heartbeat that this reflects badly on Christianity today. I think murder and conspiracy to commit murder should be prosecuted, not excused.
And I don't think an omnipotent God should suddenly be helpless to bring a murderer to justice because doing so would have negative ramifications on a kingdom. He is omnipotent. He can protect the kingdom and bring the murderer to justice at the same time.
This is especially relevant given that the ramifications of what David did ultimately ripped the kingdom apart anyway, according to scripture!
It just seems to me that we're doing everything we can to get around the fact that God excused a murder, but made damn sure to punish a baby and a kingdom for it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I missed this earlier.
I think we can agree on the important part of this: Namely, that what we're discussing is greatly alleviated if this is a story and the events did not actually happen to real people. This would make sense on a number of levels, all of which are off topic. My points are irrelevant, except as a theoretical exercise, if no one is insisting on this as actual history.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
1. There is nothing "miraculous" about societies adapting over time to recognize that there is a better way to do things. Looking down on what came before is neither ego nor immoral. It is, rather, the only way to improve.
2. God should be incapable of improving. Thus, his actions 7,000 years ago are subject to the very same moral analysis we use today. "It was a different time" can excuse what ignorant men did, but it cannot excuse what an omnipotent, omniscient God who defines himself as "love" did.
Of course, if the David and Bathsheba story never happened, that changes the game. Same with Job. But that's another story.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm not going to argue that there where talking snakes.
Our ancestors co-evolved with snakes. It's in our DNA to recognize them. Coincidence the devil is represented by a snake?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If I used "awe inspiring" instead of "miraculous", might be semantics here. I'm not conjuring the supernatural to solve problems. DNA is a miracle because I just think it is. Evolution is an amazing process. Societies evolving is the same. That gods were conceptualized and formed God later is also important to note.
I think your conception of God is too strict. Yes, people think that way. I'm not trying to push that. Collective wisdom is greater than the sum of the individuals, and isn't easy to articulate. That's where God lives.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
ok.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Relating back to the opening post.
There WAS good reason to leave David in place, in spite of the obvious need for justice that is instinctively felt by any normally functioning human from any millennia. For the sake of the nation, which had more value than any individual.
Victor Paul Wierwille and Loy Craig Martindale where not leaders of anything of value.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
So it was impossible for God to serve justice with David while simultaneously protecting Israel.
An all-powerful God couldn't pull that off.
Never mind that Israel fell apart because of what David did, not a generation later, according to scripture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
God is an abstract concept. That is real. I'm not sure that we argue with something like that.
The story, or the abstract message within it, is what is important. Not what actually happened. Since it's the story that connects people both geographically and in time. The story survived. Historical facts do not. Useless stories also don't survive. This one did.
Exactly what the message is? I don't know. Stories with no perfect solution usually carry the best message. I mentioned Personal Justice vs State Survival. Maybe there's a better idea besides that, or just saying it's a terrible old book, and how we couldn't fathom David's behavior.
(BTW - God is dead. God is also real. Descriptions of abstract contradict and don't contradict at the same time. Take that VPW and your hand in your glove)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.