Baidarka

I am beginning to find this thread to be quite disturbing.
Carrie and Old man are arguing from the paradigm of a real Bible God. Which is producing an argument like: If Superman came from a planet that was made of Kryptonite why is this substance so dangerous to him?
The Bible was written by people who had political and theological agendas. The Bible is a collection of these Stories.
Saul was punished by God for not being enough of a murderer, while David is rewarded for adultery and murder. What are we to make of this?
Your arguments take for granted the reality of the Bible God and ignore the social and political milieu of the writers. You ignore literary inventiveness and poetic licence and argue if it is fair for God to act the way an ancient writer imagined Him (I use the masculine pronoun "him" only because Bible God seems to be a him and I am not implying the Mysterious force behind existence is a him or even an it)to act. Was it fair for Odysseus to kill the suitors? Why did Athena help him to murder the suitors and then the maidservants?
Did Onan really deserve capital punishment for masturbating?
These sorts of questions can only be asked within the context of presupposing the existence of Athena or God or YHWH.
My point is that the really important question is what do these strange inconsistencies in the development of ancient morality tell us about the cultures that embraced these stories? How does our cultures embrace of these strange stories as holy affect our current morality and our sense of ourselves?

Carrie

Disturbing eh? Well, you know I don't BELIEVE in the existence of the Bible's God. I don't know if there is any God at all.

But when I argue with Christians I write as though their "god" is real, because they think "he" is. So I just try to make my point that it's ridiculous to believe in their god, by giving them reasons to think that. Like, "your god is like this" and so therefore he can't be who you say he is; he's not god.

Yes, it would be interesting to know what these strange inconsistencies in the development of ancient morality tell us about the cultures that embraced these stories. And it would be interesting to know how our culture's embrace of these strange stories as holy has affected our current morality and our sense of ourselves. But I have no ideas there.

Old Man

There is a big difference between David & Saul. First, Saul was given a specific command by the prophet to do something. He disobeyed. It was not in a moment of temptation. It was deliberate, calculated, insincerity on his part.

First Saul lies, and claims he spoke the truth to Samuel :

1Sa 15:20 And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and have gone the way which the LORD sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.

Saul is then condemned for wilful rebellion against God by Samuel, and stripped of the kingship (but not killed):

1Sa 15:23 For rebellion [is as] the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness [is as] iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from [being] king.

Saul then admits he lied to Samuel

1Sa 15:24 And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice.


This has a remarkable similarity with Ananias and Sapphira who lied to the apostles:

Act 5:4 .....why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

Act 5:5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.


The moral then, is that wilful lying to God is a more serious sin than sin against men sucumbed to through temptation, but without attempt to lie to God. David was never recorded as lying to God. And David was not rewarded but punished severely by God.

And Saul was not condemned to death or otherwise punished than being stripped of his kingship. Saul could have accepted his dismissal from the kingship and resigned. He could have gone back to his life before he became king. But he went on defying the word of Samuel the prophet and playing the king, despite being rejected by God. Saul then descended into being a murderer himself, because he tried to kill David on many occasions.

Further, Saul also became an adulterer because:

1Sa 25:44 But Saul had given Michal his daughter, David's wife, to Phalti the son of Laish, which [was] of Gallim.


And so Saul was eventually killed by the Philistines.

But this is the danger when those who despise the bible mock it with feeble interpretations that no one can accept. Ultimately it proves nothing as they not only have little idea about what the bible is really about, but don't want to know either.

And take note of the consequences of "wilful insincerity" before God. They were always severe.

Kosh

And this shouldn't be surprising. When you make a cult, the first thing you'd want to do is install into the followers a fear of disobedience to the leaders.

Since a very large majority of the atheists are former Christians, including a couple of former priests, it's pretty obvious here that you're talking out of your ass.

Is everybody quaking in their boots now?

Mageth

There is a big difference between David & Saul. First, Saul was given a specific command by the prophet to do something. He disobeyed. It was not in a moment of temptation. It was deliberate, calculated, insincerity on his part.

David's story of adultery and murder was not in a "moment of temptation" either. Read 2 Samuel 11. It was deliberate and calculated, and I reckon could even be called "insincere". And he was, after all, wilfully disobeying more than one of the Ten Commandments. He plotted to have Uriah die in battle. As clear a case of premeditated murder as you can find.

Ultimately it proves nothing as they not only have little idea about what the bible is really about, but don't want to know either.

And I question you for claiming David's actions were justified by being somehow excusable by being merely in "a moment of temptation" when reading the Scripture clearly reveals otherwise.

Kosh

But this is the danger when those who believe the bible attempt to promote it with feeble interpretations that no one can accept.
Ultimately it proves nothing as they not only have little idea about what the bible is really about, but don't want to know either.

JEST2ASK

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES AGAIN BETWEEN DAVID AND SAUL

1 - Samuel 21: 1 - 10 David eats bread reserved for the priest and takes Goliath's sword (lying to the priest about why he is there etc) this leads to 1-Samuel 22: 18 - 19 *85 five priest killed and the city attacked "both men and women, children and nursing infants, oxen an donkeys and sheep were struck with the edge of the sword" what is with this of killing animals

David always is protrayed as so remorseful after the fact ... (Good spin writers I guess)

2 Samuel 24: 1-25 (again David sins and others are punished 70,000 men)
* 2 -4 , 10

:confused; How does this make Saul an Adulterer

Interesting David later marries Bathsheba and their son Solomon becomes King ..... David truly a man after God's own heart......

Except when it isn't I know I know it only seems like they got away with something God's ways are mysterious ...
Just because some one dies peacful in their sleep, rich at an old age doesn't mean God does not judge & punish him in the here-after.....

JEST2ASK

Excellant observations and questions ... I often read between the lines and wonder ... what was the orginal intent, what was the writer's (editor's) real point ... It just seems obvious to me that what we have now (the bible and other ancient texts) is far from the orginal context.


Wanted you to know someone appreciates your input:notworthy :notworthy

Baidarka

Carrie :
I did not mean to imply that you are mired in the fundie illusion. Only that you seem to be arguing from their side of unreality.
I suggest that you might try the following as an exercise:
How would you word an argument with a Greek mythist fundie who believes that Icarus’ wings melted when he flew too close to the sun? Hint- the sun is 93 million miles away. The air gets colder as we fly higher. Human powered flight by feathered arm operated wings has proven to be unlikely(human arms not being strong enough).
I suggest this exercise because the Greek myths, which are as credible as the Biblical myths, are no longer covered with the varnish of holiness. So you may be able to word your argument in a more objective fashion.
You might enjoy reading Jonathan Kirsch’s book “King David, the real life of the man who ruled Israel”.
One of the best arguments for a historical King David is that the David of the Bible has so many flaws. A fictional pious King could have been described as perfect, but if there was a real King David behind the Biblical character then the writer may have had to include some of the stories that were known about the man even if those stories were unflattering. If there was a real King David (there is very little extra Biblical evidence of his existence) then it is not at all surprising that real life did not strictly follow Biblical Law. Would you expect God to strike down X President Clinton for adultery?

Old Man:

Your devotion to a literal reading of the Biblical passages that you cite seems quite alarming to me. Your inability to be shocked by the blood thirsty God described in the wars of the OT can only be excused by some sort of religious blindness that must protect you from the reality of what is really being described. War in those days was fought with slings, arrows and swords. Men got up close to each other and hacked away(a bloody and miserable business). The Bible ban demanded the slaughter of men, women, children and livestock. Yet you don’t condemn Saul for carrying out this inhumane atrocity you choose instead to take the literal word of an obviously deranged Samuel that YHWH wanted more blood! I don’t know where you stand on the current rash of Muslim terrorism but your belief that one must do what ever murderous deeds that your imaginary deity demands gives me the chills.
As to why David managed to get away with his crimes, that’s simple, he was King. The rich get away with a lot. Michael Jackson claims to be a pious and God fearing soul but it is his incredible wealth that has so far insulated him from prosecution for child molestation.
Your insinuation that I and anyone who might argue with your narrow Biblical interpretation despise and mock the Bible is groundless. For me the Bible is a literary treasure which you and your ilk who are unable to appreciate because of your narrow literal misreading and your inability to appreciate it humor and it’s poetic metaphors and it’s literary power.

“But this is the danger when those who despise the bible mock it with feeble interpretations that no one can accept. Ultimately it proves nothing as they not only have little idea about what the bible is really about, but don't want to know either.
And take note of the consequences of "wilful insincerity" before God. They were always severe.”

As for your gullible adherence to the unlikely explanation, in Acts, that Ananias and Sapphira were struck down by God for lying, it seems transparently obvious to me that they were cheated and murdered by Peter and the wacky cult that they tried to join!

Baidarka

Carrie
I just reread your original post and I am beginning to appreciate your gentle, ironic style.
I think that one of the underlying themes in the David myth is that David is extremely good looking and that everyone who sees him is seduced by him even God. David is forgiven anything that he does when he picks up his harp and plays his sweet music or when he puts on a revealing outfit to dance in celebration of victory.
It is like the Elvis legend which skips lightly over his excesses and moral lapses and fauns over his pretty sexual gyrations. He is even forgiven for the awful movies that he made.
David is somehow glamorous, he seems to be bi-sexual, he also seems to have been a bandit who worked for Israel’s enemies and yet all is somehow forgiven.
It is said that the victors write the history books. Perhaps David’s scandals were so well known and that the Bible writers could not leave them out but could only assure us that God forgave David everything and that someone from the root of Jesse would always be blessed by God to sit on Israel’s throne (so much for prophesy).