So Lucy, 'splain something to me: how could a just God kill David's baby for his father's crimes?

[Skald the Rhymer]

Some of y'all may know the story of David and Bathsheba. I'll summarize for those who didn't have to sit through Sunday School every week.

David was the second king of Israel and a man after God's own heart. He had many wives, but one day he happened to see a local hot chick, Bathsheba, bathing in her courtyard, as seen here.


Sure is pretty, ain't she? (http://public-domain-photos.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Jean-Leon-Gerome-Bathsheba-1889.jpg)

Struck by Bathsheba's righteous booty, David decided to have her bathed and brought to him. (Well, okay, they probably skipped that first part.) This being before the pill, Bathsheba promptly got knocked up, which was a problem as she was married to another man: Uriah the Hittite: a general in David's army, off fighting the enemies of Israel. Hoping that Uriah cannot count, David summons him back to Jerusalem in the hopes that he'll take advantage of the unexpected leave to shtup his wife; but Uriah declines, feeling that despite his wife's grooviness he should not be making the beast with two-backed-beast while his guys are fighting at the front. David wants to avoid a scandal for some reason, so he then has Uriah whacked, then takes Bathseba as his new bride.

Months pass. Bathsheba has the baby, a son. Then the current voice of Yahweh, Nathan, shows up and calls David out, tricking him into condemning himself with a clever parable. The Lord of Hosts then decides to punish David, but rather than use the time-honored lightning bolt method, he inflicts the child with a slow and presumably painful illness. David puts on mourning clothes and begs the Lord of Hosts to spare his baby boy, but Yahweh's in one of those moods and isn't having it. The kid dies. Bathsheba, for unclear reasons, does not react tothis by slitting David's throat while he's asleep. David goes on to live quite a few more years, and ultimately is succeeded by another of his children by Bathsheba.

Okay, that's the story. (And here's a less assholish version.) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2011-12&version=CEV)Now Christians, please tell me this: how do you -- you, personally, not your church or pastor -- reconcile Yahweh's behavior in this story with the notion that he is just and merciful?

[Rhythmdvl]

I didn't know that elicidator stepped up as the Board's religion expert.

[BwanaBob]

Why is this question for Christians only? Isn't this an Old Testament occurence? Scholars of Judaism might have an opinion.

[silenus]

No, that would be 'luci.

Reason:
God is a right bastard. "Just and merciful" is more New Testament-ish.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Why is this question for Christians only?

Five reasons:


I felt like it.
I was raised in a Christian denomination (a Pentecostal denomination, to be specific, the Church of God in Christ) whose "theology"* generally asserts that God is (a) unchanging throughout history, and (b) kind, loving, and just, so that is what I am most familiar with, and I am not certain that Judaism makes the claim of God being kind;
The person I am currently refraining from strangling in the real world is COGIC and is fond of making the above referenced assertion;
If any Jews wish to answer the question, they will whether I ask them or not; and
I felt like it.

[Rhythmdvl]

No, that would be 'luci.

Reason:
God is a right bastard. "Just and merciful" is more New Testament-ish.

Oh, I see. But I thought Lucy was a psychiatrist by trade (5¢; the doctor is in). Wouldn't it have been better to ask one of the guys who write for the Family Circus or B.C.?

...

The Old Testament has a lot of things in it that make no sense from a "what would God want with a starship" perspective. Judges 12 somethingorother is my favourite WTF moment. Jephtah or something like that does a 180 on the whole no-sacrificing-kids-do-god thing.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Oh, I see. But I thought Lucy was a psychiatrist by trade (5¢; the doctor is in). Wouldn't it have been better to ask one of the guys who write for the Family Circus or B.C.?

...

The Old Testament has a lot of things in it that make no sense from a "what would God want with a starship" perspective. Judges 12 somethingorother is my favourite WTF moment. Jephtah or something like that does a 180 on the whole no-sacrificing-kids-do-god thing.

I'll give Yahweh a pass on that one (and even the story about the war against the tribe of Benjamin, which is a lot worse) because he's not the one stirring up shit in either case. But in the son-of-Bathsheba story, it's all but incontrovertible that God kills the nameless kid to punish David. Bad aim, that.

[Swords to Plowshares]

IIRC the Old Testament had a lot of "punishing sons for the sins of their fathers" moments.

[Skald the Rhymer]

IIRC the Old Testament had a lot of "punishing sons for the sins of their fathers" moments.

Sure. But I'm still interested in Christians' take on it. I can think of a fairly rational response: The Bible in general, and the OT in particular, is full of myth and symbol, and anyway a lot of it was written by Bronze Age sheep herders. You have to pick the parts that work for you, because frankly a lot of it is horrifying to modern sensibilities.

I can think of one pastor I know who'd say just that. But she's in the minority.

I'm wondering how persons of more mainstream beliefs take it, and also how Biblical literalists resolve it.

[kanicbird]

Now Christians, please tell me this: how do you -- you, personally, not your church or pastor -- reconcile Yahweh's behavior in this story with the notion that he is just and merciful?

I really don't have a good answer from the child's perspective. I could assume it would be similar to many of the aborted, the soul removed before the body is destroyed. But will ask and get back to you.

[Swords to Plowshares]

Sure. But I'm still interested in Christians' take on it. I can think of a fairly rational response: The Bible in general, and the OT in particular, is full of myth and symbol, and anyway a lot of it was written by Bronze Age sheep herders. You have to pick the parts that work for you, because frankly a lot of it is horrifying to modern sensibilities.

I can think of one pastor I know who'd say just that. But she's in the minority.

I'm wondering how persons of more mainstream beliefs take it, and also how Biblical literalists resolve it.

I mean, I'm a Christian and that's basically my view.

I think most of those things come down to attempting to explain events as part of a "just world" worldview, ie. something bad happened so it must have been because someone sinned.

[Chronos]

First of all, the reason why murder is a sin is because it means we're playing God. It's God's place to decide that someone should die, not ours. Among other reasons, this is connected to the fact that God knows with absolute certainty what happens in the afterlife, and also connected to the fact that E has a plan for each of us. From a human's point of view, we can't know what happens to someone we kill, and we are probably going against God's plan (whatever that is) for that person, so doing so is wrong for us. From God's point of view, though, he was just taking the baby to Heaven, which is no punishment at all for the baby.

Even if it's not a punishment to the baby, though, it is still a punishment on David. There are other ways God could have punished David, of course, but E still had big plans for him, and wanted to give him a chance to change his ways and continue on that plan.

Now, one might reasonably point out that this whole ordeal was also presumably very painful for Bathsheba, who can't really be assigned blame for anything that happened. I admit that I do not know what to say to that.

[smiling bandit]

Sure. But I'm still interested in Christians' take on it. I can think of a fairly rational response: [I]The Bible in general, and the OT in particular, is full of myth and symbol, and anyway a lot of it was written by Bronze Age sheep herders. You have to pick the parts that work for you, because frankly a lot of it is horrifying to modern sensibilities.

Most "mainstream" Christians accept that lots of the Old Testament in particular are unreliable, and are most unreliable when claiming the Voice of God directed something.

However, we also accept that we don't own our lives. We only live as long as God wills: everyone and noone dies of "natural" causes, since every life and death has a supernatural cause.

[The Second Stone]

Because he didn't have a poll function. Seriously, Skald is the one asking this? Mr. Hypothetical disaster to a hapless fictitious second person for the amusement of the stat checking masses. Really? The irony is so broad that you could operate a dry cleaner's mangle with it.

[Lemur866]

God kills EVERYONE. Every human being on Earth, except those alive right now, died because God decided they should die. And the only reason we aren't dead is because God hasn't decreed our doom yet. But pretty soon--maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon--we're going to die at God's command as well.

The baby that dies because God decides to teach David a lesson dies just as unfairly as a baby that dies for no particular reason that we can see, or young woman who dies of an ectopic pregnancy, or the old man who dies in bed surrounded by his great-grandchildren.

Either it's all unfair, or it's all fair. As an atheist, I think it's all unfair because the universe is not conscious and is indifferent to human suffering. As the man said, deserves got nuthin to do with it.

[Blake]

From a human's point of view, we can't know what happens to someone we kill, and we are probably going against God's plan (whatever that is) for that person, so doing so is wrong for us.

Hang on.

The Bible says that God's plans can never be thwarted (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2042:2&version=NIV). So how is it even possible that something that a human does can go against God's plan?

This makes no sense at all. If killing someone is "going against God's plan for that person" then that means that the plan has been thwarted. If God has a plan for a person, and that plan can never be thwarted, then killing that person must, ipso facto, have been part of God's plan for that person all along.

This is a recurring theme in Christian attempts to explain the parts of the OT where God acts like an arsehole. The explanations themselves contradict other parts of the OT and the whole thing becomes and even bigger mess that makes God look like a lying arsehole as well as a bloodthirtsy arsehole.

[BigT]

Hang on.

The Bible says that God's plans can never be thwarted (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2042:2&version=NIV). So how is it even possible that something that a human does can go against God's plan?

This makes no sense at all. If killing someone is "going against God's plan for that person" then that means that the plan has been thwarted. If God has a plan for a person, and that plan can never be thwarted, then killing that person must, ipso facto, have been part of God's plan for that person all along.

This is a recurring theme in Christian attempts to explain the parts of the OT where God acts like an arsehole. The explanations themselves contradict other parts of the OT and the whole thing becomes and even bigger mess that makes God look like a lying arsehole as well as a bloodthirtsy arsehole.

The actual theological answer is that there are two plans: one that is what would happen in a perfect world, and one for what happens in a world with human intervention. It's what leads to the concept of free will: God doesn't force man to follow his plans. He merely works to ensure his ultimate goals are still met.
Christians refer to these disparate plans as his "perfect will" and his "permissive will."

As for why God doesn't force us, that's another debate entirely. I'll just briefly give the usual answer: What good is someone who loves you because you made them do so?

[Farmer Jane]

Stop assigning human traits to God and you'll have less of a headache.

[Farmer Jane]

Hang on.

The Bible says that God's plans can never be thwarted (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2042:2&version=NIV). So how is it even possible that something that a human does can go against God's plan?

This makes no sense at all. If killing someone is "going against God's plan for that person" then that means that the plan has been thwarted. If God has a plan for a person, and that plan can never be thwarted, then killing that person must, ipso facto, have been part of God's plan for that person all along.

This is a recurring theme in Christian attempts to explain the parts of the OT where God acts like an arsehole. The explanations themselves contradict other parts of the OT and the whole thing becomes and even bigger mess that makes God look like a lying arsehole as well as a bloodthirtsy arsehole.

It's my plan that my son does the dishes in the evening. I'm the boss. But I'm not going to stand over him with a frying pan screaming if he doesn't do the dishes, though I suppose I could.

God says, "Do this."

Human says, "No."

God says, "Well now look what you did. I just grounded you from the Wii."

[Blake]

The actual theological answer is that there are two plans: one that is what would happen in a perfect world, and one for what happens in a world with human intervention. It's what leads to the concept of free will: God doesn't force man to follow his plans. He merely works to ensure his ultimate goals are still met.
Christians refer to these disparate plans as his "perfect will" and his "permissive will."

Amazing. In one simple paragraph you have both shown that the Bible is both worthless as a source of information on the traits of God and demonstrated that the Bible is self-contradictory.

The Bible says that no plan of God's can be thwarted in the highly and demonstrably imperfect world in which Job lived. That the world is an imperfect one in which even the innocent suffer is the whole point of the Book of Job.

Trying to explain how humans can thwart God's plans by claiming that it only applies to a perfect world radically different to the one in which Job lived makes the Bible both dishonest and worthless when it comes to describing God, since the Bible says specifically that no plan of God's can be thwarted in the imperfect world.

As I said above, these explanation invariably become an even bigger mess that makes God look like a lying arsehole as well as a bloodthirtsy arsehole and prove the Bible to be worthless in diving the nature of God.

[Blake]

It's my plan that my son does the dishes in the evening. I'm the boss. But I'm not going to stand over him with a frying pan screaming if he doesn't do the dishes, though I suppose I could.

I honestly can not see any relevance at all to this little homily.

Are you claiming that your son can never thwart your plans?

Because if you are then it why would you need to stand over him with a frying pan? You know that your son will do the dishes as you planned because he can not thwart any plan that you have.

And if you are not, then what relevance does this have to the relationship between God and humans? Are you saying that the Bible is wrong, and that Gods plans can be readily thwarted unless God stands over humanity with a metaphorical frying pan? If so then you have once again demonstrated that God is a liar as well as proving that the Bible is utterly worthless in diving the nature of God.

[Steve MB]

First of all, the reason why murder is a sin is because it means we're playing God. It's God's place to decide that someone should die, not ours. Among other reasons, this is connected to the fact that God knows with absolute certainty what happens in the afterlife, and also connected to the fact that E has a plan for each of us. From a human's point of view, we can't know what happens to someone we kill, and we are probably going against God's plan (whatever that is) for that person, so doing so is wrong for us. From God's point of view, though, he was just taking the baby to Heaven, which is no punishment at all for the baby.
That argument might have some credibility if the death had been an instantaneous painless blue-bolt, but it wasn't.

[kanicbird]

I really don't have a good answer from the child's perspective. I could assume it would be similar to many of the aborted, the soul removed before the body is destroyed. But will ask and get back to you.

After asking the Lord, this is what I got:

David sinned by the murder of Uriah, so left the protection of God and fell under the authority given to Satan. Since David committed murder, and Satan demands skin for skin, Satan now had a claim on the royal family. As such Satan will take a child as payment for the sins of the adult. This satisfied the murder and released the claim that Satan had. God could not hear the plea for mercy from David for his child because David gave Satan authority over this and as such Satan had to be the one to respond to David's cry. But God could act on the cry of the child if the child was ready to cry.

The child had to enter hell, but was given a hedge of protection (Job1:10), which is a bubble of altered reality. This allowed the child to be brought up in a semi-normal way and not experience hell as it is. Though this hedge of protection is still living in a bubble, so it's not normal life, but simulated normal life.

The reason for this hedge of protection is though God could not hear the prayers and cry of David for his child, as David willingly gave those to Satan (though the murder), God could hear the cry of that child, but that child was too young to have understanding to do so. That child would suffer without knowing why and too young to figure it out. So God protects that child till the time is right, till that child is capable of understanding and God can hear that cry and rescue that child.

Such children do suffer a lot when the hedge is removed (as in Job) and the reality of where they are is revealed, but in the end are given a double portion of the inheritance which God has equipped them for.

So that's how the mercy of God works in this instance.

[Gorsnak]

I'll have what he's having.

[Czarcasm]

Stop assigning human traits to God and you'll have less of a headache.One of these things just doesn't belong, Can you tell which thing is not like the others. By the time I finish my song?You cannot know the mind of God
You cannot know the will of God
God is Good

[smiling bandit]

Amazing. In one simple paragraph you have both shown that the Bible is both worthless as a source of information on the traits of God and demonstrated that the Bible is self-contradictory.

It's very clear in the Bible that people can and do often thwart God's will, in all kinds of ways. It's also clear that no matter what happens, he's gonna win in the end. He's made plans knowing we were going to screw things up.

[FriarTed]

It's worse than Skald puts it.

After Nathan the prophet confronts David, David responds that a man who does as he did should pay with his life OR pay fourfold. He not only lost his baby with Bathsheba but one son (Ammon?) rapes his sister Tamar & is killed by a half-brother Absalom who then challenges David for the throne & is killed. Near the end of David's life, a fourth son names himself successor, as rival to David's appointed one Solomon, his only surviving child with Bathsheba, & is executed for his 'treason'. Not one baby alone but three more grown sons bite the dust.

That said, I think Chronos &, rhetorically, Lemur866 explained it best. I will challenge Chronos' assertion that Bathsheba bore no blame. She may have quite willingly come to David's bed. It's not stated that he ordered or forced her. Perhaps a "Noble King, the Lord has favored you and seated you on the Throne of Israel but He has also let you travail for it & challenge the King whom He had previously so blessed. If we transgress God's Law, might He not raise His hand against you?" would have caught David off guard & caused him to repent.

Re the thwarting debate. I've always seen it as we can thwart God's short-range plans & our part in it, but His ultimate plans will prevail no matter what.

[Skammer]

Okay, I haven't read any of the responses yet, so here is my explanation:

I can't reconcile it. I don't have enough information. The death of the baby is a tragedy, and like so much other suffering in the world, I'm not really sure why God allows it. I do see that God was able to use this suffering to teach David a lesson, though, and help him become a better man and a better king, so at least something good was able to come from it. But basically you're just asking the old question, 'why does a just God allow people to suffer' and I don't think we are capable of understanding the answer to that question.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Okay, I haven't read any of the responses yet, so here is my explanation:

I can't reconcile it. I don't have enough information. The death of the baby is a tragedy, and like so much other suffering in the world, I'm not really sure why God allows it. I do see that God was able to use this suffering to teach David a lesson, though, and help him become a better man and a better king, so at least something good was able to come from it. But basically you're just asking the old question, 'why does a just God allow people to suffer' and I don't think we are capable of understanding the answer to that question.

I am not posing the problem of evil here. Yahweh doesn't allow the baby to die. Yahweh kills the baby, slowly. From the cite in the OP:

"He [The Lord] has forgiven you, and you won't die. But your newborn son will." 15Then Nathan went back home. The LORD made David's young son very sick.
16So David went without eating to show his sorrow, and he begged God to make the boy well. David would not sleep on his bed, but spent each night lying on the floor. 17His officials stood beside him and tried to talk him into getting up. But he would not get up or eat with them. 18After the child had been sick for seven days, he died, but the officials were afraid to tell David. They said to each other, "Even when the boy was alive, David wouldn't listen to us. How can we tell him his son is dead? He might do something terrible!"
19David noticed his servants whispering, and he knew the boy was dead. "Did my son die?" he asked his servants.
"Yes, he did," they answered.
20David got up off the floor; he took a bath, combed his hair, and dressed. He went into the LORD's tent and worshiped, then he went back home. David asked for something to eat, and when his servants brought him some food, he ate it.
21His officials said, "What are you doing? You went without eating and cried for your son while he was alive! But now that he's dead, you're up and eating."
22David answered:
While he was still alive, I went without food and cried because there was still hope. I said to myself, "Who knows? Maybe the LORD will have pity on me and let the child live." 23But now that he's dead, why should I go without eating? I can't bring him back! Someday I will join him in death, but he can't return to me.
That's pretty unambiguous. The Lord of Hosts killed the kid just as he killed all the firstborn of Egypt.

And you know something? I don't actually have a, ah, problem with the problem of evil, as such. If one grants the existence of God, then I think C. S. Lewis was spot-on in The Problem of Pain (or perhaps Miracles) when he said that, having created a world with definite physical traits and laws, it is impossible even for an omnipotent* deity to prevent all suffering. If the heat from a flame decreases by the cube of a distance, and at distance X that heat will warm a hand, then at distance X-Y that heat will burn or kill.

But this isn't a case of Yahweh being consistent in the application of natural law. This is a case of Yahweh deliberately stepping in to kill the kid.

[Skald the Rhymer]

It's worse than Skald puts it.

After Nathan the prophet confronts David, David responds that a man who does as he did should pay with his life OR pay fourfold. He not only lost his baby with Bathsheba but one son (Ammon?) rapes his sister Tamar & is killed by a half-brother Absalom who then challenges David for the throne & is killed. Near the end of David's life, a fourth son names himself successor, as rival to David's appointed one Solomon, his only surviving child with Bathsheba, & is executed for his 'treason'. Not one baby alone but three more grown sons bite the dust.

That said, I think Chronos &, rhetorically, Lemur866 explained it best. I will challenge Chronos' assertion that Bathsheba bore no blame. She may have quite willingly come to David's bed. It's not stated that he ordered or forced her. Perhaps a "Noble King, the Lord has favored you and seated you on the Throne of Israel but He has also let you travail for it & challenge the King whom He had previously so blessed. If we transgress God's Law, might He not raise His hand against you?" would have caught David off guard & caused him to repent.

Re the thwarting debate. I've always seen it as we can thwart God's short-range plans & our part in it, but His ultimate plans will prevail no matter what.


Ted, I'd forgotten about the four-fold thing and David's words coming back to bite him. Thanks.

As for Bathsheba -- I dunno. But I tend to think, based on practically no evidence, that David seduced her rather than raped her. He's a mensch before he takes the throne and a nearly perfect jackass afterwards, but I think rape would have offended his ego.

Stop assigning human traits to God and you'll have less of a headache.

I think that if one postulates the existence of a deity who is worthy of worship, rather than just being so powerful he can enforce his will, then one has to grant that such a deity is understandable to humans. To refer to Lewis again (and no, I don't recall which book), if God's morality is incomprehensible to us, we might as well worship an omnipotent fiend.

[carnivorousplant]

If any Jews wish to answer the question, they will whether I ask them or not; and
I felt like it.


"Shit happens."

[Thudlow Boink]

I am not posing the problem of evil here. Yahweh doesn't allow the baby to die. Yahweh kills the baby, slowly. And yet, the Old Testament doesn't always seem to draw a clear distinction between what God allows and what God causes. And in fact I would be hard pressed to say where the line is to be drawn between what an all-powerful creator God causes and what God merely allows to happen (not that I'm saying there isn't a distinction).

Kind of along the lines of what smiling bandit said, I'm at least a little hesitant to take it uncritically at face value when the OT says what God did and why.

It is a fact of life that babies sometimes get sick and die. And that sometimes this is, at least partially, due to some "sin" their parents committed. And that, more generally, children suffer because of things their parents did, and that God does not prevent this.

One of my first reactions to stories or questions like this is to wonder what the story's early hearers or readers or tellers would have thought about it. Would it have occured to them that Yahweh was acting unjustly? With a baby that young, would they have considered the baby's illness and death as primarily something that happened to the baby, or something that happened to David?

[carnivorousplant]

With a baby that young, would they have considered the baby's illness and death as primarily something that happened to the baby, or something that happened to David?

Infant mortality was so high that Judaism didn't consider a baby to be a person for several days.

[Little Nemo]

I think Lemur866 answered it best. Keep in mind all these events happened about three thousand years ago. That baby would be dead by now anyway. David's dead. Bathsheba's dead. Uriah's dead. Tamar's dead. Amnon's dead. Absalom's dead. Solomon's dead.

From God's perspective, it's no big deal whether you die when you're a week old or when you're a hundred years old. Your mortal existence on Earth is just a short prelude to your eternal existence in the afterlife.

[Blaster Master]

There's a few ways to look at this. One of the most important parts to realize is that God's justice is not the same as human justice. For one, we have harsher penalties for what we believe to be harsher crimes whereas most Christians would see that God has essentially the same punishment for all sins. Second, while death is the ultimate penalty for human crimes, depending on what one believes about the afterlife, it may be anywhere from the ultimate penalty to the ultimate mercy. And so, while it may seem harsh to us, it could be an effective way to punish those involved (both David and Bathsheba) and remove the illegitimate heir in a merciful way.

However, for me personally, I can't really agree with that. There is no real fundamental difference in who is punished but rather in that the punishment is appropriate for the desired effect. In this case, the result is still a punishment to those who sinned but it also is a manner of reestablishing as reasonably close to the path as possible. That the child had to die as well isn't so much that God was doing it as a punishment but that it was another part of the consequence of the choices that were made.

[Czarcasm]

If God's justice is not our justice because we are incapable of understanding his ways, why presume without evidence that justice is involved at all?

[Skald the Rhymer]

If God's justice is not our justice because we are incapable of understanding his ways, why presume without evidence that justice is involved at all?

Hence Lewis's remark that, if God's will is utterly incomprehensible to us, we might as well worship an omnipotent fiend, because our obedience can be motivated only by terror, not by love.

[smiling bandit]

Hence Lewis's remark that, if God's will is utterly incomprehensible to us, we might as well worship an omnipotent fiend, because our obedience can be motivated only by terror, not by love.

Theres a difference between being unable to understand fully and being unable to understand at all. Good is mercilessly complicated, as any moral philosopher soon finds. God more or less flat-out says we won't understand everything, and that you have to accept what you can and move on.

However, I shoudl also point out that the Jews were not exactly perfectly reliable, and tended to put convenient words in the mouth of God. Job is almost certainly a moral story and not to be taken literally, while other things are direct histories or even literary pieces.

[Czarcasm]

Hence Lewis's remark that, if God's will is utterly incomprehensible to us, we might as well worship an omnipotent fiend, because our obedience can be motivated only by terror, not by love.I won't say that truer words have never been spoken("You look like you could use a full body massage and a vodka on the rocks" comes to mind), but they're pretty high on the list.

[carnivorousplant]

the Jews were not exactly perfectly reliable, and tended to put convenient words in the mouth of God.

Oye.

[Voyager]

It's worse than Skald puts it.

After Nathan the prophet confronts David, David responds that a man who does as he did should pay with his life OR pay fourfold. He not only lost his baby with Bathsheba but one son (Ammon?) rapes his sister Tamar & is killed by a half-brother Absalom who then challenges David for the throne & is killed. Near the end of David's life, a fourth son names himself successor, as rival to David's appointed one Solomon, his only surviving child with Bathsheba, & is executed for his 'treason'. Not one baby alone but three more grown sons bite the dust.

And even better better Matthew says that Jesus is descended from Solomon. Well Joseph is, not Jesus actually, but that gets into another whole bit of confusion.

That said, I think Chronos &, rhetorically, Lemur866 explained it best. I will challenge Chronos' assertion that Bathsheba bore no blame. She may have quite willingly come to David's bed. It's not stated that he ordered or forced her. Perhaps a "Noble King, the Lord has favored you and seated you on the Throne of Israel but He has also let you travail for it & challenge the King whom He had previously so blessed. If we transgress God's Law, might He not raise His hand against you?" would have caught David off guard & caused him to repent.

Classic case of sexual harassment. When de King want your booty, you give the king your booty or else.

[Little Nemo]

Hence Lewis's remark that, if God's will is utterly incomprehensible to us, we might as well worship an omnipotent fiend, because our obedience can be motivated only by terror, not by love.You can't assume God's will is incompehensible just because we don't like it. The God of the Bible has pretty clear about what's going on: here are the rules, follow them and you'll do okay, break them and you'll be punished. David broke a law and he was punished for it. And if you accept that God is handing out punishments, you should also accept Biblical claims that he hands out rewards to those who obey his laws.

[carnivorousplant]

Classic case of sexual harassment. When de King want your booty, you give the king your booty or else.

Correct, look what happened to Vashti. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vashti) :)

[Lemur866]

Look, your question really does boil down exactly to the problem of evil. Bad things happen to good people. Babies die for no reason related to human morality. Earthquakes and hurricanes and other natural disasters happen for no reason related to human morality.

The authors of the Bible were well aware that babies died, that people get sick and die, that the fate of every human being was misery and death. And so, their conception of God was consistent with the notion that babies who had committed no sins of their own got sick and died. This is the problem of evil in a nutshell. What's the difference between David's baby and every other baby who has sickened and died? None, obviously. Either every dead baby dies by the will of God, or none do.

[carnivorousplant]

This is the problem of evil in a nutshell. What's the difference between David's baby and every other baby who has sickened and died? None, obviously. Either every dead baby dies by the will of God, or none do.

I still vote for "Shit happens."

[pravnik]

If I remember my scriptures correctly, the baby was in on it.

[Voyager]

If I remember my scriptures correctly, the baby was in on it.

Just like the ones he killed in the Flood.
God knows that you can't trust those babies as far as you can throw them.

[Voyager]

You can't assume God's will is incompehensible just because we don't like it. The God of the Bible has pretty clear about what's going on: here are the rules, follow them and you'll do okay, break them and you'll be punished. David broke a law and he was punished for it. And if you accept that God is handing out punishments, you should also accept Biblical claims that he hands out rewards to those who obey his laws.

Except that when we ask for the logic behind a contradiction or an especially bizarre supposed action of God, we get that God is to great to be comprehended. As for rewards and punishments, a study of the more boring parts of the latter Bible shows us evil Kings who died at an old age in bed, and virtuous kings who died young in pointless battle. God's rewards and punishments seem indistinguishable from chance.

[woodstockbirdybird]

However, I shoudl also point out that the Jews were not exactly perfectly reliable, and tended to put convenient words in the mouth of God.

How lucky we are that the reliable Christians never did such things.

[Czarcasm]

Except that when we ask for the logic behind a contradiction or an especially bizarre supposed action of God, we get that God is to great to be comprehended. As for rewards and punishments, a study of the more boring parts of the latter Bible shows us evil Kings who died at an old age in bed, and virtuous kings who died young in pointless battle. God's rewards and punishments seem indistinguishable from chance.God is nothing if not totally just and loving.

[Voyager]

God is nothing if not totally just and loving.

An impeccably logical statement.
Especially the nothing part.

[Voyager]

However, I shoudl also point out that the Jews were not exactly perfectly reliable, and tended to put convenient words in the mouth of God.
<Baron Munchausen (from radio)> Vas you dere, Charley?

[Skald the Rhymer]

You can't assume God's will is incompehensible just because we don't like it.


Incomprehensible may not be the right word. But no ethical system I can imagine subscribing to would rule Yahweh's actions in this incident just, kind, or loving. It'd be one thing if we were talking about Odin, whose straightforward about being a dick; but Yahweh, claiming the mantle of righteousness, seems obliged in my view to actually be righteous.


The God of the Bible has pretty clear about what's going on: here are the rules, follow them and you'll do okay, break them and you'll be punished. David broke a law and he was punished for it. And if you accept that God is handing out punishments, you should also accept Biblical claims that he hands out rewards to those who obey his laws.

Yeah, that doesn't happen either.

[SeaCanary]

Hence Lewis's remark that, if God's will is utterly incomprehensible to us, we might as well worship an omnipotent fiend, because our obedience can be motivated only by terror, not by love.

Theres a difference between being unable to understand fully and being unable to understand at all. Good is mercilessly complicated, as any moral philosopher soon finds. God more or less flat-out says we won't understand everything, and that you have to accept what you can and move on.

To answer the OP's question...
Now Christians, please tell me this: how do you -- you, personally, not your church or pastor -- reconcile Yahweh's behavior in this story with the notion that he is just and merciful?
... I reconcile it by believing (and it's quite hard for me sometimes) that "God more or less flat-out says we won't understand everything, and that you have to accept what you can and move on" as smiling bandit says.

[Deegeea]

If I were writing the Bible, which I'm obviously not, I'd put in a section where God says, "This child should not have been conceived or born, and does not figure in the plan. By transgressing and killing Uriah and taking Bathsheba to wife, you have condemned the child to an early death." Basically showing that if this not supposed to be there child were to live to adulthood, he would mess up the unfolding of the Plan.

Or better yet, have Bathsheba say it to David. That way God can keep the "ineffable" characteristic but the background still gets explained to the reader, and it's deniable if it turns out not to be what's wanted as Bathsheba's misunderstanding.

That explanation takes care of the free will + God's plan. It also manages the rules: God gave people consciences to hint to them what to do to make the best possible version of the plan happen. But the plan has contingencies on everything possible. The parts outside human control can fix the parts within the humans' ability to choose.

You can go against destiny and make it your enemy, or you can follow it and accede.

I don't actually believe that on all levels, I might on some, I'm not sure really (I tend to be rather agnostic about religion most of the time, in the sense of feeling I am of divided mind on the topic altogether). But it is my best idea of what the Bible should've been getting at, at that point in the narrative.

[Little Nemo]

Yeah, that doesn't happen either.Personally, that's my opinion as well. But if you're not willing to give God credit, you shouldn't be giving him blame.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Personally, that's my opinion as well. But if you're not willing to give God credit, you shouldn't be giving him blame.

Oh, that's bullshit. I don't give Mephistopheles credit for anything, and I don't give Odin credit for much, but I'm perfectly willing to pile blame on the both of 'em. ;)

[Lemur866]

You can go against destiny and make it your enemy, or you can follow it and accede.


How can you go against destiny? If you go against destiny, doesn't that mean you were destined to go against destiny, and therefore aren't really going against destiny?

I mean, if the oracle says you're going to kill your father and marry your mother, and you run away from home and kill a random guy and marry the widowed queen, and later found out that you were abandoned by them because the oracle said you were gong to kill your father and marry your mother, how exactly did you go against destiny? You didn't go against destiny, you fulfilled your destiny.

If God has a plan, by definition you can't go against God's plan. At least the Calvinists are consistent about this. If you stab a baby, God decided that you would stab a baby, and if a baby gets stabbed, God decided the baby would get stabbed. If later you repent of your sins and are saved, God decided that you would repent of your sins and be saved. If you don't repent of your sins and go to hell, God decided that you would not repent would go to hell.

If there is such a thing as destiny, or God's will, then no human being can escape it. If you can escape destiny, then there's no such thing as destiny.

[carnivorousplant]

How lucky we are that the reliable Christians never did such things.

I told you so...

[Revtim]

Stop assigning human traits to God and you'll have less of a headache.Yes, human traits like "logic" and "justness" and "existence" clearly do not apply.

[Enderw24]

Go on and compare it to another Old Testament story. Abraham and Issac. But there, God doesn't attempt to kill the kid. He subcontracts it out. And in that story, Abraham wasn't even doing anything worthy of Yahweh's wrath. God just felt funny that day and thought a father taking a sword to his kid was the height of hilariousness.

Lesson: God works in mysterious ways. Ooooooh. Spooky.

[carnivorousplant]

Go on and compare it to another Old Testament story. Abraham and Issac. But there, God doesn't attempt to kill the kid. He subcontracts it out. And in that story, Abraham wasn't even doing anything worthy of Yahweh's wrath. God just felt funny that day and thought a father taking a sword to his kid was the height of hilariousness.

Lesson: God works in mysterious ways. Ooooooh. Spooky.

"You know, Issac, we don't have to tell your Mother about this..."

[elucidator]

...I don't give Odin credit for much, but I'm perfectly willing to pile blame on the both of 'em. ;)

Keep in mind, your Norse gods are a pretty hyper and belligerent bunch. Though one was low-key.

[carnivorousplant]

Keep in mind, your Norse gods are a pretty hyper and belligerent bunch. Though one was low-key.

Loge is my favorite. He is an advocate for the Rhinemaidens, tricks Alberich, and is the only god to survive the opera Gotterdammerung.

[Little Nemo]

Go on and compare it to another Old Testament story. Abraham and Issac. But there, God doesn't attempt to kill the kid. He subcontracts it out. And in that story, Abraham wasn't even doing anything worthy of Yahweh's wrath. God just felt funny that day and thought a father taking a sword to his kid was the height of hilariousness.

Lesson: God works in mysterious ways. Ooooooh. Spooky.I've explained my opinion on this story before. The point of the story was that Abraham was supposed to defy God. He was supposed to tell God that murder was wrong even if an superior authority like God told you to do it. The lesson was supposed to be always follow God's laws even if somebody else - even God himself - tells it's okay to break them.

But Abraham screwed up. He immediately submitted to authority and did what he was told even though he should have known better. God sighed in disappointment that Abraham didn't get it and called off the actual murder.

Chroniclers missed this point. They didn't want to imagine that Abraham made a mistake so they tried to explain this story in terms that he had done the right thing. (And being religious authorities themselves, the message that you shouldn't blindly obey religious authorities went right over their heads.)

[carnivorousplant]

Some Rabbi, somewhere, said that G-d was showing graphically that human sacrifice is wrong.

But I still prefer "shit happens."

I can just see it.

G-d: "Wait, 'Plant, don't kill Skald! There is a ram stuck in the bushes!"
Plant: WHACK! "Sorry, G-d, what was that?"
G-d: "Never mind."

[Zedd]

What I find interesting is part of David's punishment was to take from him his polygamous wives and give them to his neighbor.

As for the baby..

Frankly, all of us die, so a child dying early is not a real shocker. Considering the potential illness' and life of a person of the era, it may have been a blessing. For sure the child was blessed by his early departure from this life.

Who knows that a consequence of the first birth of David and Bathsheba was going to die anyway?

[Skald the Rhymer]

NM

[GrandpaDave]

It seems to me that most posters here are not really interested in understanding why God acted as He did in this case, but only want to find fault with God.
Under the then Law, David and Bathsheba would have been executed(Child in womb). God, intervened and spared David and Bathsheba, but not the illegitimate child. For sure a difficult thing to understand. I trust God had very good reasons.

[Czarcasm]

It seems to me that most posters here are not really interested in understanding why God acted as He did in this case, but only want to find fault with God.
Under the then Law, David and Bathsheba would have been executed(Child in womb). God, intervened and spared David and Bathsheba, but not the illegitimate child. For sure a difficult thing to understand. I trust God had very good reasons.Why? How do you reconcile "You cannot know the mind of God" with "I trust God had very good reasons", especially when he does something that would definitely be highly immoral if done by us lesser human beings? It's almost as if every Christian out there is really saying "You cannot know the mind of God...but He and I have this "understanding", if you know what I mean."

[stpauler]

Okay, that's the story. (And here's a less assholish version.) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2011-12&version=CEV)Now Christians, please tell me this: how do you -- you, personally, not your church or pastor -- reconcile Yahweh's behavior in this story with the notion that he is just and merciful?

Atheist here. So nyah.

But it sounds like Nate the great was sent there not as a prophet but as Judge Judy and Executioner. David had sinned and then repented. However, repentance is not enough and believing that there needs to be consequences for David's actions, the unnamed(?) baby was God's just* reward for David's actions.

*a (1) : acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good : righteous <a just war> (2) : being what is merited : deserved <a just punishment> (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/just)

Since David had Uriah killed, God had something David loved killed. An eye for an eye. Sure, it would make more sense to have David killed, but that would make for a shorter story.

[Dingbang]

I've explained my opinion on this story before. The point of the story was that Abraham was supposed to defy God. He was supposed to tell God that murder was wrong even if an superior authority like God told you to do it. The lesson was supposed to be always follow God's laws even if somebody else - even God himself - tells it's okay to break them.

Really? You mean he was supposed to know that when GOD HIMSELF told him to do something, he still shouldn't do it because it was against God's rules? So you basically had this scenario:

God: "I'm God. I'm totally in charge. Do exactly what I say. Don't kill people."
Abraham: "Okay, no killing people."
God: "Kill your son. Remember, I'm totally in charge and you have to do what I say. I'm God."
Abraham: "Well, okay then. I'll kill him."
God: "I'm so disappointed."

How can you "always follow God's laws even if somebody else - even God himself - tells it's okay to break them?" That's illogical. God sets the rules but you're supposed to tell God that he can't change them or his interpretation is wrong? Who are you to tell God no? He's GOD, for God's sake.

[Acsenray]

[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer;14515990]
Sure is pretty, ain't she? (http://public-domain-photos.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Jean-Leon-Gerome-Bathsheba-1889.jpg)

What's with the masculine hairstyle?

[smiling bandit]

Really? You mean he was supposed to know that when GOD HIMSELF told him to do something, he still shouldn't do it because it was against God's rules? So you basically had this scenario.

Actually, there would have been no such rule, at least not as religious writ. And given the history of human sacrifice in the early history fo the region, it wouldn't necessarily have even been that unusual. What was unusual is that the Lord said, "Don't do that. You sacrifice sheep, my friend." Remember, the Jews' next-door neighbors were carrying out human sacrifices for centuries more.

Now, I would disagree with Little Nemo. Frankly, the Jews (and probably nobody in the world) hadn't gone as far as independant moral philosophy yet. Abraham couldn't be expected to view commands from the Lord as bullying. However, he could be proved in his faith. Therefore, the test to him was his faithfulness. Then Moses gave the Law that they had to obey even when God wasn't tellign them what to do, and the Lord tested the constancy of the Jews with trials and tribulations when they failed, and eventually sent the adopted son of a Carpenter to mention something about mercy over sacrifice or something of that nature, and even more prophets and saints in the years to come.

But all that came after wasn't Abraham's lot. He was tested in the way he could be tested: was he willing to obey even when he didn't understand and told to do something painful. Isaac, no less, willingly submitted.

[carnivorousplant]

[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer;14515990]
Sure is pretty, ain't she? (http://public-domain-photos.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Jean-Leon-Gerome-Bathsheba-1889.jpg)

What's with the masculine hairstyle?

Probably the current style of the model.
Looks rather like Alma-Tadema. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Alma-Tadema)

Though his faults are legion, Skald does have good taste in art. :)

[Little Nemo]

Really? You mean he was supposed to know that when GOD HIMSELF told him to do something, he still shouldn't do it because it was against God's rules? So you basically had this scenario:

God: "I'm God. I'm totally in charge. Do exactly what I say. Don't kill people."
Abraham: "Okay, no killing people."
God: "Kill your son. Remember, I'm totally in charge and you have to do what I say. I'm God."
Abraham: "Well, okay then. I'll kill him."
God: "I'm so disappointed."

How can you "always follow God's laws even if somebody else - even God himself - tells it's okay to break them?" That's illogical. God sets the rules but you're supposed to tell God that he can't change them or his interpretation is wrong? Who are you to tell God no? He's GOD, for God's sake.There's a difference between a law and an order. You can be given an unlawful order even by somebody who enacted the law.

God would have known he wasn't going to be constantly telling people directly what to do. So he laid down laws that people could follow without his personal guidance. But God would also be aware that some people would step in and start claiming to be God's representative who had authority derived from God. And some of these authorities would order people to do things that violated God's law. So God wanted to put forth the message to stick with what the laws say.

I always felt that Exodus 4 offered a contrast with Genesis 22. The passage in Exodus is very brief and somewhat confusing but it's clear that God wants somebody to be killed and Zipporah defies him. And God essentially says "Okay, no problem."

I think that again, the Chroniclers didn't want to think about the implications of what happened. They didn't want to admit that a woman who wasn't even an Israelite had done the right thing when Abraham had failed the test. So again, they interpreted the story in a way they were more comfortable with and claimed this was a message about the importance of circumcision.

[Lemur866]

It seems to me that most posters here are not really interested in understanding why God acted as He did in this case, but only want to find fault with God.
Under the then Law, David and Bathsheba would have been executed(Child in womb). God, intervened and spared David and Bathsheba, but not the illegitimate child. For sure a difficult thing to understand. I trust God had very good reasons.

OK, so according to God's law, David and Bathsheba deserved death, and if Bathsheba was pregnant then her unborn baby would die with her.

Except, the baby was not unborn. It was born. The child was a product of sin, but was not sinful himself. But God didn't kill the sinners, David and Bathsheba. Instead he killed the baby. But your only answer is that even though you don't know the reason this was justice, you know it must be justice, because it came from God and you trust God.

The only answer to this puzzle is that God kills everyone, like I said before. And he eventually got around to killing David and Bathsheba, and if the baby had lived and grown up and become a man and married and had children and lived a full life, the baby would eventually die sooner or later, because every human being is fated to die under God's plan. If everyone dies, then dying sooner or later can't be unjust because everyone is dead for exactly the same amount of time: forever.

The trouble with this viewpoint is that it reduces our Earthly lives to meaninglessness. Why the heck would God put us through this puppet-show? The answer of course is that God doesn't put us through anything, we don't die and suffer because God commands it, we die and suffer because we are material creatures in an indifferent material universe and if it turns out that there is something in the universe that could be labeled "God" that something is utterly unconcerned with human lives and sufferings and deaths.

[carnivorousplant]

There's a difference between a law and an order. You can be given an unlawful order even by somebody who enacted the law.


Now wait a minute. God and lawyers?
All the lawyers are in the Other Place.

[Skald the Rhymer]

It seems to me that most posters here are not really interested in understanding why God acted as He did in this case, but only want to find fault with God.
Under the then Law, David and Bathsheba would have been executed(Child in womb). God, intervened and spared David and Bathsheba, but not the illegitimate child. For sure a difficult thing to understand. I trust God had very good reasons.

The god you worship is evil.

[Skald the Rhymer]

[quote=Skald the Rhymer;14515990]
Sure is pretty, ain't she? (http://public-domain-photos.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Jean-Leon-Gerome-Bathsheba-1889.jpg)

What's with the masculine hairstyle?

Do I look like Gérôme to you?

Anyway,

[dirty middle-aged man]

it's like Natalie Portman posing for cheesecake after getting her locks shorn for Vendetta. Bathsheba was so hot the short hair didn't matter. And as this painting is presumably from David's point of view, I assure you he was not looking at her head. ;)

[/dirty middle-aged man]

[Voyager]

Really? You mean he was supposed to know that when GOD HIMSELF told him to do something, he still shouldn't do it because it was against God's rules? So you basically had this scenario:

God: "I'm God. I'm totally in charge. Do exactly what I say. Don't kill people."
Abraham: "Okay, no killing people."
God: "Kill your son. Remember, I'm totally in charge and you have to do what I say. I'm God."
Abraham: "Well, okay then. I'll kill him."
God: "I'm so disappointed."

How can you "always follow God's laws even if somebody else - even God himself - tells it's okay to break them?" That's illogical. God sets the rules but you're supposed to tell God that he can't change them or his interpretation is wrong? Who are you to tell God no? He's GOD, for God's sake.

Where do you get that God was disappointed? God was happy that Abraham was willing to do it, and changed the rules at the last minute when Abraham passed the test. It's not that human sacrifice was wrong, it is just that God no longer commands it.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Really? You mean he was supposed to know that when GOD HIMSELF told him to do something, he still shouldn't do it because it was against God's rules? So you basically had this scenario:

God: "I'm God. I'm totally in charge. Do exactly what I say. Don't kill people."
Abraham: "Okay, no killing people."
God: "Kill your son. Remember, I'm totally in charge and you have to do what I say. I'm God."
Abraham: "Well, okay then. I'll kill him."
God: "I'm so disappointed."

How can you "always follow God's laws even if somebody else - even God himself - tells it's okay to break them?"

When did God give Abraham the "don't kill people" command?

[Skald the Rhymer]

When did God give Abraham the "don't kill people" command?

Never. Yahweh never outlaws murder until the giving Moses the Decalogue.

[Dingbang]

Where do you get that God was disappointed?

From this:

God sighed in disappointment that Abraham didn't get it and called off the actual murder.

As for this,
There's a difference between a law and an order. You can be given an unlawful order even by somebody who enacted the law.
That seems a very human, earthly way of looking at it. Yes, a military officer can give you an unlawful order that you should refuse, but he's not the almighty ruler of the universe who made the rules and presumably is free to change his mind if he damn well feels like it.
It's interesting to think that if God appeared on earth to you and told you something that you (the fallible, non-omniscient human) interpreted as contrary to the teachings of the Bible, you'd look God in the eye and tell him to screw off. Would you, really? You'd tell God he's got it all wrong and you're right?

[Dingbang]

Never. Yahweh never outlaws murder until the giving Moses the Decalogue.

Okay, no Bible scholar here. I was going on Little Nemo's explanation of how God was just testing Abraham to see if he would kill the boy even though it was against the rules:
The point of the story was that Abraham was supposed to defy God. He was supposed to tell God that murder was wrong even if an superior authority like God told you to do it. The lesson was supposed to be always follow God's laws even if somebody else - even God himself - tells it's okay to break them.

[carnivorousplant]

We need a Rabbi.

[Voyager]

From this:
As for this,

That seems a very human, earthly way of looking at it. Yes, a military officer can give you an unlawful order that you should refuse, but he's not the almighty ruler of the universe who made the rules and presumably is free to change his mind if he damn well feels like it.
It's interesting to think that if God appeared on earth to you and told you something that you (the fallible, non-omniscient human) interpreted as contrary to the teachings of the Bible, you'd look God in the eye and tell him to screw off. Would you, really? You'd tell God he's got it all wrong and you're right?
I didn't realize the the postings of Little Nemo had become holy writ about this story. I use the Dylan Highway 61 Revisited scriptures myself.
The question is whether God was disappointed that Abraham had listened to him, and nothing I see in the Bible, and nothing I learned in Hebrew School makes me think so. The moral of the story is that you should obey even the most heinous of commands and all will come out right.
I'm not sure what I would do talking to God but Abraham had a special relationship. Remember how he negotiated about the fate of Sodom? And Sarah laughed at the angel telling her that she was going to bear Isaac. So Abe saying "hey man, you must be putting me on" sounds perfectly feasible.